Stories

The Myth of the Arab Spring

Barry Cooper
November 19, 2012
Back in early 2011, many thought the Arab world was following our lead and that every Tunisian or Syrian protester really longed for liberal democracy. Wrong. The expectation of a democratic outcome in the Arab world reflects Western myopia. Barry Cooper explains...
Stories

The Myth of the Arab Spring

Barry Cooper
November 19, 2012
Back in early 2011, many thought the Arab world was following our lead and that every Tunisian or Syrian protester really longed for liberal democracy. Wrong. The expectation of a democratic outcome in the Arab world reflects Western myopia. Barry Cooper explains...
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

The recent violence in the Gaza Strip with hundreds of rockets fired at Israel in the past two weeks and Israel, rightfully, responding with force, should be a reminder that much of the Western hopes for the “Arab spring” were based not on reality but in magical thinking.

To recap: Almost two years ago Mohammed Bouazizi, a food vendor in Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia, doused himself in gasoline and set himself alight. He was protesting harassment and humiliation by police and municipal officials who had confiscated his wheelbarrow filled with vegetables, which he had purchased on credit. He lacked a vendor’s permit and sufficient money to bribe them into leaving him alone. He died 18 days after the altercation and self-immolation.

Shortly after Bouazizi’s protest, the streets of Sidi Bouzid were filled with increasingly violent demonstrators. Over 5000 people attended his funeral; the riots escalated and grew more widespread, eventually engulfing the capital, Tunis. After having been refused entry to France, President Ben Ali found refuge in Saudi Arabia.

Despite suicide being forbidden by Muslims, Bouazizi quickly became a hero, an inspiration and, in the political if not the religious sense, a martyr. Within six months of his death over a hundred Tunisians had followed his example along with Algerians, Egyptians, and a single Saudi. The western media called the unrest that accompanied these acts the Arab Spring.

The standard narrative was that oppressive regimes from Morocco to Jordan had stifled democratic dissent. Street protesters, especially those speaking English in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, were the vanguard of a political uprising in favour of liberal democratic reform. If the people were supported by western democracies, the story went, the Middle East would be forever changed.

This narrative was mostly wishful thinking. Western media looked at the region and saw what they hoped for: a replay of the end of the Cold War in the lands formerly dominated by the Soviet Union. In so doing they neglected two of the most obvious differences between these two parts of the world.

First, with the possible exception of Poland, the states that replaced the Soviet empire were secular. Second, there was widespread agreement in central and Eastern Europe that Soviet domination was illegitimate and that the western European model of liberal democracy was desirable.

In the Middle East religious divisions and conflict are central, but more importantly, the regimes across the region were never imposed upon the people by an outside imperial power for its own geostrategic reasons.

To mention only the most obvious example, Nasser’s Egypt, Gadhafi’s Libya and Hafez el Assad’s Syria were all founded by nationalists motivated by anti-western and anti-imperialist sentiments. The regimes established by military coups from the 1950s to the 1970s were more secular than the corrupt religiously-connected ones they replaced, but they were hardly champions of free speech, the rule of law, and competing political parties.

The expectation of a democratic outcome reflects a well-known western myopia: we think that the world is following our lead and that every Tunisian or Syrian protester really longs for liberal democracy. In fact, political issues in every country in the world, whether Canada or Nepal or Egypt, are derived from the distinct historical past of each country.

Specifically, for many citizens, the army in Egypt, or Syria, or Libya was the source of order. It protected minorities—especially religious minorities—against the religious enthusiasms we now call Islamism. This is why the Copts in Egypt voted so heavily last spring for Ahmed Shafiq, a former air force commander under President Mubarak, and against the eventual winner, Mohammed Morsi, a member of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. It explains as well why the Alawites in Syria have so strongly supported the el Assad regime.

In short, the pleasing mythology of the Arab Spring initiated by Mohammed Bouazizi has now foundered on the reef of reality. Two years ago it was easy for Western elites and their media to flatter themselves and think it was all about resisting tyranny. Today we have to deal directly with economic stagnation, with a history of peoples with little experience with any form of government besides that of armed bureaucrats, and with divided, fractious, and often irrational religious traditions.

From the Maghreb to Iran, political order is in decay. Many countries cannot control their own borders, so they will be almost completely preoccupied with maintaining domestic order. Overcrowded cities saturated with social media promise to make mob violence endemic because rumours can blossom as outrage in a matter of hours.

That new reality may inspire a new realism. With all this instability and chaos, it is clear that the West is as incapable of shaping events as the besieged and struggling regimes that emerged from the Arab Spring.

But while the West cannot shape events, responses will, on occasion, be necessary. Israel, a proxy for the West and on Islam’s “bloody borders”—to borrow the Samuel Huntington phrase—is again dealing with the realities of that region. Israel has endured 12,700 rockets fired at it from Gaza since 2001. But it is now responding and must do so in ways that will be additionally unpleasing to Western elites still engaged in their magical, wishful unrealities.  

Barry Cooper is a professor of Political Science  at the University of Calgary and a Senior Fellow at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

Ottawa is Playing a Game of Charter Chicken with the Provinces

The federal government has long objected to provinces using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ “notwithstanding” clause, arguing it lets them trample over the rights of Canadians. But that view, flawed as it is, is nothing compared to Ottawa’s latest gambit on this issue, writes Andrew Roman. Liberal Justice Minister Sean Fraser’s recent intervention in the case of Quebec’s Bill 21 asks the Supreme Court of Canada to declare limits on the use of the notwithstanding clause. This would amount to a backdoor amendment of the Constitution by the court, one that would give judges even more power and leave elected representatives even less scope to avoid or undo their harmful decisions. More than just an attack on provincial autonomy, writes Roman, it threatens to upset the balance at the heart of Canada’s federal democracy.

What if October 7 Had Happened Not in Israel but in Canada?

It is probably beyond the imagination of most Canadians that they would ever face the kind of evil atrocity Israelis suffered on October 7, 2023. Or that we would find ourselves living next door to savage terrorists bent on our annihilation. But as Gwyn Morgan points out, it is critical to understand that reality as Israel’s struggle for existence carries on. The history of Israel is nothing short of miraculous. As Morgan personally observed on a tour of the world’s only Jewish state, Israelis have with determination and heart built a free, tolerant, prosperous and technologically-advanced democracy while surrounded by enemies. In the face of ruthless attacks by Hamas and the craven behaviour of supposed friends and allies who now lean in favour of the terrorists, Israel has reminded the rest of the world what real courage is.

One Country, Two Markets: The Shaky Promise and Unfair Burden of “Decarbonized” Oil

“Decarbonized” oil is being touted as a way to bridge the policy chasm separating energy-rich Alberta and the climate-change-obsessed Mark Carney government. Take the carbon dioxide normally emitted during the production and processing of crude oil and store it underground, the thinking goes, and Canada can have it all: plentiful jobs, a thriving industry, burgeoning exports and falling greenhouse gas emissions. But is “decarbonized” oil really a potential panacea – or an oxymoron that makes no more sense than “dehydrated” water? In this original analysis, former National Energy Board member Ron Wallace evaluates whether a massive push for carbon capture and storage can transform Alberta into a “clean energy superpower” – or will merely saddle its industry and government with a technical boondoggle and unbearable costs while Eastern Canada’s refiners remain free to import dirty oil from abroad.

More from this author

Conservatism’s Greatest Canadian Teacher: What we can Learn from George Grant

Most everyone would agree the political movement led by Pierre Poilievre is not your parents’ Conservative Party. Then again, neither arguably was the government of Stephen Harper. Did the 50s-era populist John Diefenbaker embody “real” conservatism? For that matter, did Sir John A. Macdonald? One man who spent his life struggling to define Canadian conservatism and determine who measured up – and who fell short – was political philosopher George Grant. For Grant, conservatism was rooted in the pushback against the interconnected forces of liberalism, technology and the American superstate. Now, a group of (mostly young) conservatives have taken up the challenge of evaluating whether Grant himself knew what he was talking about, and how his ideas might be applied today. Barry Cooper examines their work.

Fortis et Liber: Alberta’s Future in the Canadian Federation

Canada’s western lands, wrote one prominent academic, became provinces “in the Roman sense” – acquired possessions that, once vanquished, were there to be exploited. Laurentian Canada regarded the hinterlands as existing primarily to serve the interests of the heartland. And the current holders of office in Ottawa often behave as if the Constitution’s federal-provincial distribution of powers is at best advisory, if it needs to be acknowledged at all. Reviewing this history, Barry Cooper places Alberta’s widely criticized Sovereignty Act in the context of the Prairie provinces’ long struggle for due constitutional recognition and the political equality of their citizens. Canada is a federation, notes Cooper. Provinces do have rights. Constitutions do mean something. And when they are no longer working, they can be changed.

In Case of Emergency, Read This! Alberta’s Covid-19 Report

Despite the wreckage wrought by the Covid-19 pandemic – social disintegration, ruined lives, physical and economic tolls – the governments and public officials who “managed” the emergency have been decidedly uninterested in assessing their performance. Except in Alberta, where a government-appointed panel just released its Final Report. Though predictably attacked by politicians, media and “experts” who can abide no dissent, the report makes many sensible recommendations, Barry Cooper finds. The report calls for emergency management experts – not doctors or health care bureaucrats – to be in charge when such disasters strike, with politicians who are accountable to the people making the key decisions. Most important, the report demands much stronger protection for the individual freedoms that panic-stricken governments and overbearing professional organizations so readily quashed.