Reginald G. Ugaddan
The Tunisian’s Jasmine Revolution that resulted in the overthrow of Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and the Egyptian’s January 25th Revolution which ousted the nearly 30-year authoritarian regime of President Hosni Mubarak grabbed the attention of the whole world. The long dormant patriotism and pride of the Arab people has finally been awakened and broke the decade of silence against autocratic and archaic forms of governance.
This
successful popular uprising in the Arab region delivered a clear message to
other countries that are being ruled by monarchs and dictators. People may take such a peaceful and bloodless
approach to revolution to demonstrate that unified citizens are capable of
toppling autocratic and oppressive government.
The
dismantling of outmoded governance through people power revolution depends on
many factors. The Tunisian people’s revolution was triggered by a young high
school graduate who immolated himself in protest after he was beaten by
authorities impeding him from selling fruits for a living. The economic and
social development that obviously promotes the illegal financial pursuits of Ben
Ali’s family clan; deprivation of the Tunisian people’s human rights, dignity
and basic freedoms; along with the sorry state of economy further arouses the
anger of the people.
In
Egypt, the people’s uprising was invigorated by a young professional detained
by Mubarak’s regime due to his active role in the call for the president’s
ouster through the social networking site, Facebook. He stood and challenged
every Egyptian in a T.V. interview wherein he says, “The president needs to step down because this is a crime. And I am
telling you, I'm ready to die. I have a lot to lose in this life...I work in
the best company to work for in the world. I have the best wife and I have, I
have - I love my kids….But I'm willing to lose all of that for my dream to happen….Enough.
Enough. Enough.” These words struck
an emotional chord with many Egyptians and subsequently out-poured the streets
with renewed strength and spirit to topple the autocratic Mubarak. The young
professional’s declarations may have emotionally charged the people; however,
the main motivation for their actions was the atrocities and pain that they had
lived through as well as the economic and political hardships of the past
30-year
of the suppressive
regime. Yes, they did it; they won and
ousted the dictator.
The
Arab’s type of people power revolution had happened in other countries like the
Philippines,
Indonesia, Iran, etc. There is a common purpose and focal point for
protesters—the ouster of a long-serving dictatorial leader. This large-scale popular
protest has proven to be an effective medium to change the political structure
of a nation. The Marcos ouster in the Philippines was characterized by a
systematic and dramatic outpour of protesters from all walks of life, whereas
other nations have more of a slow-burning revolution that leads to the
resignation of oppressive leaders like in the case of Indonesia. The People
Power Revolution is an extraordinary exercise of the right to assembly and
speech.
Transition to Democracy
The
transition to democracy is always a challenge to a popularly ousted autocratic
regime. Undeniably, there is a clear transition because there is no return to
the old ways of autocratic governance.
Lessons from the experiences of a newly turned democratic nation may show
us that transition either resulted in real democracy or pseudo-democracy. The
authoritarian regime was disguised in an institutional facade of democracy, in
which a suppressive nature of governance subsisted and the fruits of democracy
were still evasive.
Some
countries use military intervention as an apparatus in politics to assist with
the interim government while waiting for a duly elected president. In the stage
of transition, one of the challenges is the limited power for the interim
government that lacks legitimate authority to undertake long-term economic
visions. The completion of political transition is an important factor to
consider in the formulation of strategic economic goals.
There
are various factors that may prolong the democratization process, but
ultimately the institutionalization of democratic systems is achieved.
Differences may be attributed to mentality, culture, political culture and
attitude. However, the presence of a functioning state renders transition an
easy pace. In the Philippines, Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, Tunisia and the like, functioning
institutions carryout peaceful and smooth transitions. In a single-handedly
ruled nation like Libya, democratization would be unlikely because of the
absence of a constitution, working bureaucracy and institutions that are
instrumental to transitional governance.
Modern People Power
The recent uprising in the Arab world opened
the gate for more involved citizens in the democratic sphere. In Egypt, the
unrelenting use of social media such as Facebook and Twitter helped mobilize
all people from every walk of life. Prior to the revolution, the majority of
the citizens never experienced street rallies or demonstrations; however, it wasn't long before their patriotic sense was ignited by the poor state of
their nation under a one-man rule. Surprisingly, protesters came out like a
flood in the Egyptian street, both in organized and organized fashion. This
movement was so groundbreaking that the entire world was well informed of the
very minute details of the uprising.
In the Philippines, the ouster of the deposed President
Estrada in 2001 can be attributed to the persistent use of text messaging. This
resulted in the multi-sectoral outflow of students, professionals, laborers,
women, religious sector and even children in the EDSA monument, which eventually ended in the resignation of the
president.
The people’s revolution in the Arab domain could be
termed the ‘Social Media Revolution’ in a more vibrant and fast-changing world.
It was a technological revolution in a real and practical sense. We now live in
an era where protests can be organized on Facebook and honest sentiments of
corrupt leaders broadcast through twitter as in the case of Egypt.
Challenge to the NPM
There are two (2) major challenges in this development:
the people power revolution as a tool for political change, and second, the
implication of social media in governance.
Firstly, the people power revolution present in
different parts of the world manifest a more involved and vigilant body of
citizens in governance. There is power in people. Hence, government cannot just
sleep on the call for a socio-political and economic change of the nation
because the voice of the people has become more intimidating and demanding.
After the Tunisian and Egyptian revolution, people power
movements in other regions like Algeria, Yemen, Jordan, and Libya propagated
calling for political change or freedom from their autocratic leaders. The
demand of the people shifted from merely political change to socio-economic
change as well. They are inspired by the victories of people power revolution
and have seen the possibility of replicating it in their own region. This is
quite disruptive to the existing economic, social and political conditions which
government should seriously take into consideration.
In a humane society, the right to freedom of assembly
and freedom of speech is a recognized as a human, political, and civil right.
These rights have been written, emphasized and guaranteed in the International
Declarations of Human Rights, the International Human Rights Law, and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Even in a one-man ruled
Egypt, death, brutal force or preemptive scare tactics did not stop the
people’s discontentment and frustration to the Mubarak’s regime. They went out
to the streets unorganized, voiced out their claims in a nonviolent manner and
stood their ground until the ouster of Mubarak. In my opinion, though they are
not in a democratic system yet, this is democracy at its best.
There is a popular adage, “Human right is the essence of
human beings, once you deny them, and you denied man’s humanity.” A rational and humane government looks into
this as a general principle that must be adopted and practiced in governance.
For me, people’s demands are sacred demands that must be given utmost
attention. The citizen is the heart of governance. Therefore, they are at the
center of all governmental affairs and should see the fruit of government’s
efforts for economic and social development.
Finally, the social media or technological revolution in
the modern public management opened the arena for more interactive and closer
relations of people and government. It offers government a tool to directly
engage with people in a more local and efficient way. However, people on the
other hand utilize social media as a powerful tool to topple inhumane and autocratic
regime.
In a pseudo-democracy, social media is an effective way
to arouse, organize and mobilize people’s dissent against a suppressive regime.
Every citizen can do this without the fear of being abducted because of being
exposed to authorities or the limitations to speak against the government
because there is threat to security.
The emergence of social media in the sphere of
governance poses a question on how the government will reconcile its pursuit
for electronic government and the right of the people to use technological
advancements as medium of interaction. People have already seen the role of
social media in changing the political structure and in advancing
socio-economic demands to the government. However, government tends to block or
stifle such means of interaction between citizens to prevent a possible
re-occurrence of an Egyptian type revolution. A textbook case for this is the
Chinese governments filtering of information on the internet. During the
Egyptian uprising, Chinese people were denied access to information regarding
the historical revolution. Is the Chinese government afraid of a Chinese
people’s revolution? This would be an interesting story to wait.
