a thread about the civil unrest in egypt (& elsewhere in 'the region' if necessary)

We're staying put. We're not leaving until the regime is gone," said Issa Adel Issa, one of the many youthful organizers of the encampment at Tahrir, or Liberation, Square. "We don't want a military government. We want a democracy with civilians in charge."

Issa ticked off a list of demands: the dissolution of Mubarak's handpicked parliament; the dissolution of his ruling National Democratic Party; the release of thousands of political prisoners; and prosecution of those responsible for the deaths of an estimated 300 demonstrators who were killed during the 18-day revolution.

from the Washington Post

so algerias poppin off now, this is so much fun

u could meet me in the square
its goin down

I wouldn't bet on this going to work everywhere. xpost

I just love the thought of other authoritarian leaders warming up their escape helicopters

so algerias poppin off now, this is so much fun

http://i51.tinypic.com/1zzntpd.jpg

The protesters were hemmed in by thousands of riot police officers and blocked from embarking on a planned march through the capital. Many were arrested, although there were also conflicting numbers for those detained.

A witness said the police had far outnumbered the protesters.

“There was a march of police, not demonstrators,” said a man standing near the square in the afternoon, and who spoke on condition of anonymity. “The marchers had asked to conduct a peaceful march and it was refused. This is how power here acts.”

:-/

Oof

i've been thinking a lot lately about how this whole thing in egypt could not have happened unless mubarak was willing to concede certain things to the people. ie: if he did what Iran did, or what Algeria did, the resistance would have been repressed. i always have this idea in my mind that revolutions occur entirely on the part of the people, but it's kinda like a dance where both parties silently agree on the conclusion and then play through the roles of authority + people until they resolve. if on some level mubarak wasn't on board from the beginning (even if his being on board was as little as 'i will not do just anything to maintain power') this couldn't have gotten off the ground.

we dont totally know at this point but it seems like it was more the army that wasnt on board w/crushing the uprising

that's true. i just hadn't remembered hearing about him actually making a demand to crush the uprising.

If the other authoritarian regimes in the region learned anything from Egypt, it would be: squash any protest with overwhelming force the instant it tries to raise its head in a public space, or else it might gather steam very rapidly and in a few days you'll be out of power.

that's true. i just hadn't remembered hearing about him actually making a demand to crush the uprising.

― Mordy, Saturday, February 12, 2011 2:03 PM (12 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

well he sent his thugs in, best he could do

Egypt's military dissolved parliament and will run the country for six months or until elections are held, it said in a statement Sunday, two days after President Hosni Mubarak resigned.

What do most countries do between experiencing a revolution and having elections? Who generally runs the country in the interim?

the communist party had an impressive 73-year run in russia

cute!

lol

even longer for white men in America

i thought irish americans don't see race

I assumed that was a joke by Morbz

remember yall, morbz knows comedy

A secret piece of his arsenal.

Afaics, there is no general path countries follow after revolutions. It greatly depends on what power centers exist when the head is toppled, how well organized they are, how divergent their aims are, and their willingness to use force to gain their objectives. The armed forces are usually the best organized power center, but they don't always have political cohesion and may split up to join a variety of factions.

Egypt's revolution seems very nationalist atm, with a nationalist armed forces, so as long as there's no strong turn toward violent factionalism before the election, they should be able to navigate the interim fairly well. You never know, though.

The military often seems the go-to default leadership after these sorts of things, not least because seldom does anyone other than the military have the wherewithal to stage a revolt. Bloodless revolutions are ever more rare, especially those that are not a faction of an explicit coup. In fact, I'm trying to think of any other despot toppled by an insurrection on principle, that is, without someone primed to step in.

A revolt by definition is dramatic and sweeping, so it will always leave a power vacuum. Military rule is not exactly ideal, especially for a revolution based on democratic ideals, but it probably is the best way to avoid violence and chaos. There have been plenty of despots (despotic regimes) deposed through a process of reform and liberalization, but that's a process that transpires over time. A revolt does not provide the time for institution building and changes in the government and political culture, so something has to fill the void. Better the military than mob rule, in most cases at least.

The test comes will come when it's time for the military to surrender control to a civilian government. The people seem to have faith in the Egyptian military, but isn't this the same officer class that provided the top leadership of the Mubarak (and maybe even Sadat) regime? I don't understand the politics/power dynamics well enough to comprehend how the military could be seen as a fair arbitrator, and even an advocate for the people, when it is so closely tied to the Mubarak regime. Doesn't the military have huge commercial interests in the Egyptian economy? Didn't the military benefit tremendously from the status quo the last 30 years? Makes me nervous.

Egypt crisis: Protests switch to demands on pay

Same thing as happening in Tunisia?

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the military just outlawed strikes

yup, i saw that going around.

since (parts of) the military own all the productive businesses i'm sure they want to lock down all the labor-unrest elements of this pretty quick

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/12/BU1V1HLVP6.DTL

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2046963-1,00.html

two articles on the egyptian economy

http://grab.by/8WSP

twitter report says 1000s protesting in iran now?

AnnCurry Ann Curry (retweeted by ebertchicago). 1000s protesting in IRAN, facing tear gas,batons shouting Mubarak and Khamenei face the same destiny #25Bahman

apologies if i'm late to this part of the story. first i've seen of it.

more from the sideshow:

http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/02/13/horseman-apocalypse-shows-cairo

Iran's security apparatus has no problem killing/torturing/silencing opposition so um fingers crossed but I'm not gettin my hopes up there

Algeria's brutal civil war history makes me similarly pessimistic about their prospects too, unfortunately.

Bahrain = eh, who knows

Yemen = this country seems way too disorganized and disparate to facilitate a mass, youth-based movement? but I dunno.

Comments on that are all kinds of LOL (in a good way). xpost

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/coups.jpeg

Can anyone watching AJE clue me in on how they are covering the protests in Bahrain? A little close to home.

god damn @ people burning the image of the supreme leader in iran

the stones on these guys

“hypocrites, monarchists, ruffians and seditionists”

they're all gonna be shot

hats off and kudos are due, definitely but it's going to take an armed insurrection in Iran, peaceful protests will not work there

yeah i'm terrified for these dudes tbh

cosign there

xpost

Me too. Read some quote from a revolutionary guard leader where he referred to the protesters as "corpses". Chilling.

Iran: a) has a long history of violent repression, b) is not susceptible to external pressures (ie, from the US, it's neighbors, etc) since it's basically a pariah state already and c) I'm not entirely convinced the reformers are actually in the majority there, it seems much more evenly split, so the protesters are not necessarily even gonna have sheer weight of numbers on their side.

where he referred to the protesters as "corpses".

Great way to insure your country has no future. Sure you're not in the pay of Iran-haters?

Ahmadinejad seems high up on the scale of paranoid leaders who would crush the protesters even harder than normal because of everything that's already happened...like his crazy reasoning would see it as a chance to show off his iron fist of kill-smash-death

both religious and economic motivations prop up the iranian gov't. dunno what it's gonna take for things to change there; almost all the 'peaceful' revolutions i can think of have the crucial element of the Thugs deciding not to crack heads. in iran's case it seems like there will always be plenty of true believers or state beneficiaries who have no trouble getting the clubs out again. maybe a numbers game? how long can a believer-state last?

in some ways, he's just misunderstood.

M_Ahmadinejad Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Youth of Iran! Just a gentle reminder that throwing me out is pointless: a bunch of bearded geezers run this place. I'm just a handsome face

official account iirc.

lol