My Mother and My Neighbor's Dog on the Tunisian Revolution and Its Aftermath

[image from unknown archive] [image from unknown archive]

My Mother and My Neighbor's Dog on the Tunisian Revolution and Its Aftermath

By : Bassam Haddad

[Take a look at this crap first]

When Mohamed Bouazizi immolated himself in protest and set off a wave of much bigger protests in Tunis, and then elsewhere, speculation arose as to the extent to which the revolution will spread. Or, is it indeed a revolution? Maybe it was a mini-revolution, kind of like Sa`d, or baby Jesus. Alternatively, some opined, it might be just a coup. But Tunisia is old news. Protests spread quickly like, literally, a flame, to Algeria, Yemen, a teeny weeny bit in Morocco, then back to a spike in Jordan, only to settle on three-days and counting in Egypt, all over Egypt. Is the Arab world transiting to democracy? Or is it only Tunisia? And why Tunisia? Why not Egypt? Is it the lack of participation of Islamists? The nature of state-society relations in Egypt and other places where regimes built some bridges and created more stakeholders? Is it the split between secularists and non-secularists among the opposition? Are we being naïve about its spread? 

A recent study showed that 87% of Americans and a whopping 93% of the world’s population have sounded off on the Tunisian revolution and its aftermath. While political scientists and veterinarians are split on the causes and consequences of the revolution, sociologists and mid-west gardeners are in far more agreement on the importance of class and environmental variables. Oh, someone just wrote a piece about Egypt being completely different. There, encouraged by a second day of protests and more tire burning, another blogger just rescinded what he said about Egypt the day before. Op Ed diarrhea and blogger sound bites are neck to neck. It’s the nature of the Tunisian regime, no, its size, but wait, why not Iran? Blog about that. Let’s compare, because they both experienced protest. Why Yemen and not Albania? Maybe we should wait and see.

My mother places the most emphasis on the corporatist structure of interest representation in Tunisia, as opposed to those in Egypt, especially before Jamal kind of took the helm in the NDP’s Policies Committee. However, my neighbor’s dog thinks mom is exaggerating the role of institutions and points to the importance of social structural diversity, especially regarding the identity politics of the opposition. Tante Rose, being a `Awnist and all claims that now that Syria is out of Lebanon, she doesn’t mind having close relations with Syria. Nonetheless, says Chuck, our real estate agent, why did these people wait so long before getting upset. He has a point, no doubt. The most comprehensive account of the potential spread of the revolution came from aunt Jemima in a paper co-authored with Anthony Bourdain and Kanye West, titled, “My North African Sick and Twisted Fantasy,” in which they delineated the various historical junctures in post-colonial north African states responsible for creating divergent paths, explaining proneness to uprisings as well as the kind of brutality that would not take into account the cost of suppression/violence threshold. Mom disagrees, but couldn’t comment because she wanted to watch the last installment of the Palestine Papers unveiled by al-Jazeera. Quicky, my neighbor’s dog feels the analysis is taking too much of a new institutionalism turn which is somewhat outdated, and offers to write an op ed about what will happen in Egypt, except he would like to wait and see what will happen there before he asserts the applicability of one of the available approaches. The waiter just chimed in and offered the new dessert menu (the old one was left accidentally on the table). He thinks the Middle East needs a new president after that guy fled to Saudi Arabia.

[see this supportive Jadaliyya post by Tony Alessanderini]

Where the hell was everyone before Mohamed Bouazizi got fed up?

Boutros Harb For President

In my capacity as a founding editor of Jadaliyya, I hereby endorse Boutros Harb, current Lebanese Minister of Labor, for the office of President of the republic. If Lebanon were a country where presidential candidates actually stood for elections and citizens actually voted to choose who would occupy the office of the President[1], I would certainly vote for him. I would even campaign for him.

Throughout a long career of public service to his country, Mr. Harb has demonstrated an uncanny understanding of and dedication to the whole of Lebanon, and not only to the community that his detractors say his only concern is; the Christians of Lebanon. While his detractors see a man whose political positions bend with the changing political winds, I see a man who has perfected the art of Lebanese politics and taken it, along with his once March 14 ally Walid Jumblatt, to a whole new level. Moreover, Harb has been in politics for a long, long time. He first became member of the Lebanese Parliament in 1972 and has been in one way or the other implicated in the numerous achievements of the Lebanese government since then. As Lebanese citizens, we know that our best hopes for reform, security, and prosperity rest with career politicians such as Bourtos Harb.

Most recently, Harb has once again demonstrated the reasons why he is the ideal (Maronite) man to lead Lebanon and to share power with the other two principled, incorruptible, and leading political minds of that country; Saad Harirri and Nabih Berri. A true visionary, Harb has proposed a draft law that would criminalize the sale of real estate between Christians and Muslims in Lebanon. With this law, he has demonstrated his uncanny understanding and dedication to what makes Lebanese so damn special. He alone has had the courage to state that it is not enough that Muslims and Christians cannot marry each other on Lebanese lands, that the political system is divided between the Shiite, Maronite, and Sunnite sects, and that Christians, Muslims, Jews and all the sects within these categories marry, divorce, inherit, adopt, commit adultery, and are buried when they die according to different laws and regulations. No, it is not enough. For Lebanon to truly live up to its promise as the only liberal diverse democracy in the Arab world, Muslims and Christians should not be able to sell land, apartments or houses to each other. For Lebanon to reach the heights envisioned by French imperialists and their local allies, real estate must also be segregated in order to protect the special character of that country. After all, if we are not careful, we are likely to end up like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Syria. As a Lebanese woman who enjoys living in a country that protects my rights and within which I am an equal to my male counterparts, I shudder at the thought.

With Lebanon plagued by political instability, rising unemployment and underemployment, and with the very real threat of another Lebanon-Israel war at hand, it takes great courage to concentrate on the issues that matter. With his draft law that criminalizes the sale of real estate across religious communities, Harb has demonstrated such courage. Instead of needlessly trying to change a practice whereby citizens try to keep “their” areas religiously homogenous, Harb has seen the logic in legislating this practice. With Lebanese citizens worried that they cannot pay their bills, that a new civil war may erupt, or that they and/or their children will be forced to emigrate, we can rest easy knowing that politicians like Boutros Harb know what we should be worried about and are willing to act based on their superior knowledge. I hereby endorse Boutros Harb for President for all of these reasons, and because he, and his policies, truly embody all that is right about Lebanon.

 


[1] In the Lebanese political system, the President is elected by the Lebanese Parliament, members of which must stand for general elections.