"Chemo-Therapy" for Jordan

Image by Getty Images via @daylife
        The revolutionary seed has flown throughout Northern Africa and has taken root deep in the hearts of the Jordanian people. After months of low grumblings over wealth disparities, harsh economic conditions, and a lack of political agency, the Jordanian people unleashed a roar of protest after the previous successes
in Tunisia and Egypt. In a quick response, Jordan king Abdullah removed his entire cabinet and appointed ex-general Marouf Bakhit as the new Prime Minister as a gesture of appeasement. There has been great debate over whether the appointment of Bakhit and the potential for a reformed direction in Jordan is enough, or if the entire government should be scrapped in preparation for a brand new start. Regardless, protests
around the country continue. As reported by the Jordan Times, the organization of the protests seems to be emanating from the coalition of, most notably, the Islamic Action Front (Muslim Brotherhood), the leftist Popular Unity Party, Jordan Communist Party, as well as the more moderate Hashed Party. The unity of the coalition of opposition parties, however, has been fragile at best, dividing the protesters along ideological lines. Although, there is one thing all groups can agree upon: the need for reform. The most recent statement released from the coalition, published by the Jordan Times, indicates that they “agreed to give Bakhit a chance to implement his agenda” before pursuing further “popular action.” Despite this, most, especially the IAF, view Bakhit in a suspicious light, leading one to believe the marches will not cease in the near future. The tactics employed by King Abdullah over the course of this incident are of the utmost interest. As the tides of revolution washed across Jordan, Abdullah wasted no time in cutting off the dead weight, his cabinet, in order to keep his own head above the water. This symbolic act of sacrifice seeks to operate as an appeasement to the masses while also allowing Abdullah to scapegoat all of his personally complicity in the hardships of Jordan onto his administrative inferiors thus enabling him to escape unscathed with his power intact. While the response of the coalition and a great many protesters indicate a certain contentment with the king’s political pumpkin carving, a rising level of skepticism is apparent. BBC news reports that Jordanian professor Ibrahim Alloush thinks it’s notjust a question of changing faces or replacing one prime minister with another, but rather “demanding changes on how the country is now run.” Perhaps Abdullah’s appointment of Bakhit was done entirely with the welfare of the people in mind and the protests will soon end with the coming reforms. However, if Abdullah’s liquidation of his cabinet and new appointment were simply political theatrics to grasp on the cliff’s edge of power, then the thin veneer put up by the king will come crashing down as the crowds see through the façade in pursuit of freedom. This ultimately begs the question: Is reform enough or must the entire system be overhauled? Can simply cutting out tumors cure the disease, or is the body of monarchy, despotism, and oppression too diseased beyond operability? And can the doctors reforming the system even be trusted in the face of shady motives? Is the King of Jordan administering necessary chemo-therapy of a
body that can be saved or is perhaps the tumor itself doing the doctoring? While so many questions linger unanswered and the future of Jordan remains unclear, one thing’s certain: the voice of the Jordanian people will be heard.

- Comrad(e) Nomad

Related articles

• Bedouin tribes accuse Jordan's Queen Rania of corruption (guardian.co.uk)
• New Jordan cabinet after protests (bbc.co.uk)

Tunisian Revolution

Image by Abode of Chaos via Flickr
         Tunisia’s revolution has been primarily about jobs. Despite having one of the largest GDPs in Africa,
most Tunisians are relatively poor. Many college graduates have been unemployed for months. Most of
this poverty can be traced to Tunisia’s former ruler, Zine El Abdine Ben Ali. Ben Ali essentially had an economic stranglehold on the country, enriching his extensive family while impoverishing the rest of Tunisia.
Economic policies that put pressure on the middle and lower classes combined with the recent global financial
crises led to increased unemployment that was finally too much for the Tunisian people. Protestors filled the streets demanding Ben Ali to step down. The protesters seemed to be divided, however, on their ultimate goals. Many protestors wanted Ben Ali removed because of his economic policies but were content to let his party retain power. Others wanted a complete change in government. There are several possible outcomes: Ben Ali’s party, the Constitutional Democratic Rally could continue to hold power; the Sufi Muslim Brotherhood, which was essentially ousted from Tunisia during Ben Ali’s regime could see a resurgence. Perhaps some form of moderate government might rise to power. Also, Ettajdid, a progressive party run by social democrats could see their ideals gain popularity. For now, the interim government is headed by many former-Ben Ali cabinet members. Tunisia’s fate may differ from Iran’s, which saw the creation of a clerical government after its revolution. Unlike its neighbors, Tunisia is not an oil state, its law is relatively secular, and women possess many of the rights that men have. Tunisian women attribute this last difference to Tunisia’s first president, Habib Bourguiba. The Bourguiba government instituted many reforms including funding public education, a state-run healthcare system, improving literacy, and female emancipation. Ben Ali ousted Bourguiba in a bloodless coupe in 1987. Since then, the country has plummeted economically and jobs have
been scarce. The West is having some difficulty characterizing this revolution. The typical response of “clerical
state versus democracy” does not quite apply in this case. Most Westerners agree, however, that Tunisia’s
fate should be democratic. Of course, this has always been the United State’s official position, even while supporting dictators. Somehow, “democracy” is often a synonym for “pro-United States.”
According to an article by Hashem Ahelbarra published on Al Jazeera’s website on Jan 14th, the US and Europe supported the ousted President Ben Ali for his pro-secular policies: “The US and France were in love with Ben Ali. They were impressed with his persecution of the Islamists, his economic agenda was touted as a brilliant model that could be replicated in North Africa. And he proved to be a staunch US ally actively involved in the controversial rendition programme. For these reasons, the US tolerated Ben Ali's long record on human rights abuses. And when young people were killed in the recent protests, Washington and Paris chose to stand by their ally. When unrest broke in the country, President Ben Ali blamed it on "terrorists" - a reaction very symptomatic of dictators completely detached from reality
who rush to lay the blame on a scapegoat to deflect attention from the core issue…” What would democracy mean for Tunisia? Does it mean Tunisia would remain a pro-U.S. state run by Ben Ali’s former party? Or does it mean that the Tunisian people would truly rule themselves with their own interests at the center of their policy? Speaking from a historical standpoint, the revolution may be more likely to achieve true democracy by staying far away from what the West labels “democracy”, and hashing it out democratically for themselves.

- Anti-Oedipi

Related articles

• Tunisia extends state of emergency, ends curfew (alternet.org)

Egypt: Brought to You By Facebook

Image via Wikipedia

Facebook. Twitter. Texting. MySpace. Email. All of these popular methods of communication are mostly regarded as frivolous ways the typical American teen spends their free time, and until very recently this was all they were really good for. Over the past few weeks, however, this technology has been used to start a mass

protest throughout all the major cities of Egypt. Possibly the most shocking fact is that this entire upheaval was started by people under the age of thirty. For the majority of Egyptians, President Hosni Mubarak’s thirty-year autocratic rule has gone on long enough. People from all different religions, incomes, ideals, and education levels are tired of asking for a fair deal and ready to demand what they deserve: the presidents immediate resignation, the entire regime put on trial, and changes to the Constitution or a new one altogether. The desire for change has been slowly building up in Egypt for years. Although President Mubarak has protected Egypt from involvement in many Middle Eastern issues, he has forced an autocratic dictatorship upon his people. Egyptians won’t allow this to continue no matter how safe their country may be. The April 6 Youth Movement (a group of young adult activists within Egypt) started the online campaigning and organizations that effectively created the largest protests modern Egypt has ever seen. Soon more and more people became informed and joined in demonstrations around the country, including other powerful

Egyptian groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian Movement for Change. From a student’s perspective, this is not only a major accomplishment but also a pristine example of why young voices should be heard and given respect worldwide. If these young people hadn’t had the bravery and intellect to do something about injustice it is likely that these protests would never have happened. While some adults may scoff at our desire for constant communication, this clearly shows that there are benefits to the new tech-generation. Some people may view Facebook as frivolous, but this shows that it depends on how and why you use it. In fact, these methods were so successful that President Mubarak had Internet and cell phone reception shut down throughout all of Egypt. The company that was responsible for shutting down the Internet is an American company called Narus who sold Egypt this technology. The irony here is brutally apparent: While Americans push for Egypt to restore the national Internet, an American company is responsible for (and making money from) selling this technology not only to Egypt, but many other governments worldwide. In a similar vein, Democracy Now! reported that all of the tear gas and riot equipment that Egyptian security forces use, not to mention the guns and grenades now at the ready, were sold to the Egyptian government by US companies. Currently, a bill is being introduced to Congress that would allow the U.S. government to shut

down civilian Internet in times of national threat. This bill (Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act) is being re-introduced by Senators Lieberman, Carper, and Collins (contrary to myths that Obama is behind

it). Although this bill may be able to benefit the country during certain instances, it also gives the government

a huge amount of power over citizens, power they aren’t legally able to take. This bill would violate the first amendment right to free speech and freedom of the press. No matter how helpful this law could be, the situation in Egypt is a clear example of exactly why the bill shouldn’t be passed and shows just how dangerous powers like this can be in the hands of anyone. Although at first glance it may seem like the protests in Egypt have little to do with the United States, a deeper understanding of all the levels at work here shows many huge ties between both countries. Ironically, America has been responsible both for creating the technology which started the protests, and stopping this same technology from working correctly. We also have a bill being presented to congress that would give much too much power to the federal government. The Egyptian protests are far from over, and America is likely to play a big role in how this gets resolved. Hopefully the U.S. will do its part and uphold the traditions that our country was made upon.

- Dubya

Related articles

• Labor Unrest Spreads Throughout Egypt - Voice of America (news.google.com)
• Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak Resigns From Office Amid Public Protests (pinkisthenewblog.com)