This is a general waffle in relation to the Jasmin Revolution (although the Wikipedia article concentrates on the Tunisian revolution, this phrase is beginning to be used more generally) – no news here.
We often hear that no government can survive without the consent of the people, but what does that mean ? In this case it means that a significant proportion of the people are sufficiently angry with their government to risk violence, arrest, and even death to demonstrate their need for a change. The governments involved can try a variety of tactics to deal with the protestors but their first reaction – violent repression – will only make the protestors more demanding. Ignoring the rights and wrongs of punishing protestors, violence can work if the protestors are a small enough minority, but at a certain point it becomes self-defeating.
If a government offers change, it needs to do so before it resorts to violence – the government wants to offer as little change as possible, and violence means the protestors are more demanding of change. Indeed the government needs to offer just a little more change than it wants to. Offering too little change such as President Mubarak appears to have done, does little to stem the anger of the people.
What makes people annoyed enough with the government to take to the streets ? There are a whole variety of reasons not limited to :-
- The absence or perceived absence of a say in the composition of the government. Or in other words the lack of a genuinely democratic government. That is not to say that merely having some form of democracy means that a government is immune to this effect as even in a democratic society, there can be those who believe they have no say in their government. For example the UK democratic system can be subject to this effect as people in “safe” constituencies will often believe that they have no say in their government if they do not vote for the party that always wins.
- A belief that their government does not act in the best interest of the people. This includes but is not limited to the perceived level of corruption within the government or society.
- Injustice where the people are subject to arbitrary arrest and punishment for “crimes” that most would regard as completely normal activities.
- A lack of personal freedom (closely associated above) including but not limited to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and the freedom to go about one’s daily business without undue interference from the government.
- How old a government is. People can put up with a bad government for a year, or even five, but sooner or later it becomes unpalatable. In fact that even applies to a good government – if it stays in power too long, not only will it be subject to strains that make it a bad government, but even if it avoids those it will be condemned simply because people want change from time to time.
- The economy. If the economy is poor enough that people are suffering, or income inequalities reach the point where the difference between rich and poor becomes excessive, that is in itself a source of grievance.
Dictatorships are more subject to this kind of problem than democracies, but democracies are not immune.
It is perhaps unfortunate that mass protests usually descend into violence. However it is perhaps inevitable particularly when the forces of control are also violent. There are those who claim that the violence by protestors is somehow caused by “dark forces”. Nothing could be further from the truth – the violence is merely an expression of the level of anger felt. President Mubarak’s “dark forces” cannot instigate these level of protests and when they are underway have no way of controlling them.
It is likely that these accusations are themselves enough to cause the protests to continue.