The events that have in recent weeks, Tunisia, Egypt and other Arab countries now shaken let us back here in Germany at first surprised and confused. Meanwhile, however, seems an interpretation as "democratic revolutions" have prevailed. I am very skeptical on the other hand, because so far seems - especially among journalists - to be very much wishful thinking at work, projected onto one's own ideas that actually occurring events.
First the basic question: What is meant by "democracy"? This term is frequently overused as dazzling and ambiguous that the who use it should define its meaning clean. Finally, the former President Mubarak has been elected several times. Moreover, in both countries was the main demand in higher wages, perhaps one should therefore be better to speak of a social revolution.
Secondly, Tunisia. There, President Ben Ali abandoned his post and went into exile. But some "opposition politicians" are (whatever that word mean in the specific conditions of Tunisia) with the Government involved. Much more is not been done in Tunis. So you can only speak of a partial change of elites, but by no means a "democratization". The latter could come at some point, but if and when this stage is questionable.
Furthermore, the partial collapse of the Tunisian security apparatus is already negative impact on Europe. This refers to the onslaught of illegal immigrants in Italy. This expansion of the Tunisian "Revolution" shows quite clearly that lofty ideals to be not in international politics, as regards the question of migrants themselves, the old government under Ben Ali appeared to behave positively.
Second, Egypt. In that regard, George Friedman wrote a very readable analysis I can only recommend strongly: "Egypt: The Distance Between Enthusiasm and Reality" . It stirred up much salt is in German by the media "democracy" euphoria scattered and he takes a lot of questions, which I have also moved in recent weeks.
you look behind the scenes, then the events in Cairo appear rather than a coup, has settled in which the prevailing de facto military for decades, the frontman Hosni Mubarak .
Friedman know also rightly points out that a revolution is different (think about 1789 in Paris at or in Iran in 1979 ). A few hundred thousand people demonstrating in a square in the capital, bring, but no state to collapse. In what parallel universe live some journalists, when they think that some protesters might bring down the government? This is no different in Germany: For example, why should not be built Stuttgart 21, just because there are demonstrations against it?
There is doubtful to conclude from the expression of these demonstrators on the opinion of the entire Egyptian people. This includes at least 80 million people - and who questioned the order to determine that the majority was against Mubarak? Thus, the question prohibits a "victory of the people".
downright ridiculous further was the representation of Mohammed El Baradei . After a protest in Cairo had begun by most correspondents - probably objectively true - reports that his reputation among the people was not particularly large. Immediately after his return, but he has been portrayed as big, "opposition leader". I, however, had the impression that El Baradei tries to jump on an on-going development and to do important. He did not seem like an impeller, but rather as a man driven. A navigator acts differently (see Lenin ).
know I also do not quite know what to make of the televised regular posters with English inscriptions, which were held by protesters for the cameras. Why do Egyptians communicate with their president in the English language? As far as I can not shake off the impression as if there manipulation of a significant degree or, gentler, theater was operated at the direction of the target countries.
are also dubious theories of a "Facebook revolution." Revolutions are decided by the visible power, not by sending e-mails. The latter are a tool, but no more. To use this tool to aggravate and bring the situation under control in the country, the Egyptian government had drastically hampered for several days to access the Internet.
Amazingly I found so far the outrage of German journalists about this process. Have no books on the October 1917 read? In my childhood, I devoured Selbig and white since that one has to fill before any true revolution, the telegraph offices and stations to control the channels of communication. And since the Egyptian state was not weakened, he has also done this to prevent the fall of power in the hands of his opponents. But what would you expect from a country in such a tense situation and different?
must at this stage so will also be found in Egypt that a "democratic revolution" is not visible. Revolution means that a fundamental change has taken place in power relations. This is not the case in Cairo. The previously indirectly ruling military has now directly taken power and the constitution suspended. Significant changes were only in a few supernumeraries, including Mubarak has been deducted. In these processes is so far still not democratic. What develops from it, only time will tell, but at the moment there is no reason for the media-mediated euphoria. Should also not forget that a democracy in the inner (whatever that may mean in this particular case), is no guarantee of a foreign policy for a long time, which corresponds to the ideas of "Western States".
Photo: RIA Novosti.
0 comments:
Post a Comment