So I suppose first off I should provide an update about the on goings politically here. On Thursday, the day before my birthday, several thousand members of the Jordanian youth movement, calling themselves “March 24th” set up a Tahrir Square-esque sit-in style tent camp in what is officially called Jamal Abdul Nasser Square. From what I understand they were joined by allies from left-leaning opposition groups, as well as the Islamist movement (interesting bedfellows to say the least. Imagine if the Communist Party USA were actually bigger and were demonstrating with, oh I don’t know, say… Focus on the Family). They completely shut down the square and said that they would stay there until they got the reforms they were demanding (resignation of the prime minister and director of intelligence, dissolution of parliament, and a new election law). As I drove by on my way home form a joint birthday party the police and royal guard had cut off all the roads leading towards the square.
The situation started to get heated when pro-government (or I guess if you wanted to flip it the other way, anti-reform) protesters began throwing rocks at the sit-in. Reportedly a lot of the youth were bandaged from being hit by stones thrown from the overpass and debris from construction sites nearby. The protestors were there for about a day, but were driven out by riot police who intervened as the counter demonstrators clashed with the March 24th movement. I’ve read a number of different descriptions of what happened, including one from a Cuban correspondent who described how the jubilation the youth demonstrators showed when water cannons first showed up, turned to chaos as they were turned on them. Two people were reportedly killed, although the official line is just one.
Following the fatalities another 16 members of the “National Dialogue Committee” which was established when the last Prime Minister was fired resigned their positions on the originally 53 member panel to protest the security crackdowns on the pro-democracy demonstrators. The largest opposition group, the Islamic Action Front, had already decided not to participate previously, and following the violence stated that: “The Islamist movement demands the resignation, or the sacking, of the government and the formation a national unity and reformist government that would win the people’s trust and protect their lives,” and “Any government that kills citizens loses legitimacy,”.
The left leaning members that resigned, from the Popular Unity Party and the Jordanian Communist Party issued a joint statement:
“What happened was not a clash between the ‘March 24 Youth’ and pro-government loyalists but rather a systematic action on the part of the authorities which should be responsible for the massacre,” and that ““This proves that any talk about political reform is nothing more than allegations that lack foundation, which means that our membership in the committee is an act of time buying while also misleading the Jordanian public.”
The situation started to get heated when pro-government (or I guess if you wanted to flip it the other way, anti-reform) protesters began throwing rocks at the sit-in. Reportedly a lot of the youth were bandaged from being hit by stones thrown from the overpass and debris from construction sites nearby. The protestors were there for about a day, but were driven out by riot police who intervened as the counter demonstrators clashed with the March 24th movement. I’ve read a number of different descriptions of what happened, including one from a Cuban correspondent who described how the jubilation the youth demonstrators showed when water cannons first showed up, turned to chaos as they were turned on them. Two people were reportedly killed, although the official line is just one.
Following the fatalities another 16 members of the “National Dialogue Committee” which was established when the last Prime Minister was fired resigned their positions on the originally 53 member panel to protest the security crackdowns on the pro-democracy demonstrators. The largest opposition group, the Islamic Action Front, had already decided not to participate previously, and following the violence stated that: “The Islamist movement demands the resignation, or the sacking, of the government and the formation a national unity and reformist government that would win the people’s trust and protect their lives,” and “Any government that kills citizens loses legitimacy,”.
The left leaning members that resigned, from the Popular Unity Party and the Jordanian Communist Party issued a joint statement:
“What happened was not a clash between the ‘March 24 Youth’ and pro-government loyalists but rather a systematic action on the part of the authorities which should be responsible for the massacre,” and that ““This proves that any talk about political reform is nothing more than allegations that lack foundation, which means that our membership in the committee is an act of time buying while also misleading the Jordanian public.”
The Prime Minister issued a statement saying that, “We are not going to accept dialogue that is conducted from the streets.” It’ll be interesting to see if he can continue to feign deafness should the movement continue to heat up, and should over a third of the established committee for dialogue continue to express itself through action through non-institutional channels.
I’m sure most of my readers are familiar with the revolutions occurring in Syria, Yemen, and Libya (especially given the commitment of American military forces in the latter). I’m less sure of how familiar my audience might be with other demonstrations occurring globally over the past few weeks. Yesterday in Great Britain hundreds of thousands of protestors took to the streets to protest massive cuts being made to critical discretionary spending there. In Georgia thousands turned out to protest a proposed immigration bill similar to the controversial one in Arizona. I’ve had a discussion before with a friend from Bates that the next “civil rights movement” in America is going to be over immigration and the rights of people who live and work within the country (and as some economic analysis shows contrary to conventional wisdom, actually help the economy), and I’d say that’s still a distinct possibility.
Also I’d like to point out the massive reaction to anti-labor legislation in Wisconsin and other states. For decades “organized” labor has merely been a nominal designation. Union membership as a percentage of the labor force is pitiful and no life seemed to be breathing within the beast that brought you the weekend and the 8 hour day. But following the introduction of such reactionary legislation, it would appear that there is a potential for a rebirth. Thousands turned out to protest the attack on public employees, and the support came from both public and private unions. The American Public shows that the cause isn’t lost either: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/us/01poll.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=poll+and+collective+bargaining&st=cse
So what do pro-labor, anti-draconian immigrant legislation, and anti-crippling austerity measure demonstrations in the West have to do with pro-democracy, anti-corruption, reform movements in the Middle East? We had a lecturer the other day who equated the revolutions to a function of pan-Arabism and drew a historical lineage from the anti-colonial liberation movements seen in Algeria against the French. He actually polled some of our Arab staff about their opinions on “Arab Unity” catching them off-guard a bit. All of the movements within the Middle East have taken on individually nationalistic tones, and the discussion of pan-Arabism seems, to me at least, to only really crop up in fanatic imaginings of the fall of the region to radical Islamists and the establishment of a Caliphate. His allusion to national liberation movements of the past holds truth, however, not in the Arab identity of the revolutionaries, but in their struggle against illegitimate coercion and power. An opposition to what felt like an affront to humanity itself. This is the link between movements East and West, and North and South.
I fortuitously chose to try to tackle a book I had picked up in early high school but struggled with shortly before coming to Jordan. I only got about half way through it before I needed to transition back to my pre-program reading assignments which I, naturally, put off till the last minute. The book is Change the World Without Taking Power: The Meaning of Revolution Today by John Holloway. It was written in the early 2000’s after the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle in ’99, and the rise of the Zapatista movement in Mexico in 1994, which he describes as the “first post-modern revolution.” Two things stick out in particular from the book. One is the concept of “the scream,” which is, in essence, a visceral response to something that seems indescribably wrong or unjust. But, though the scream is visceral, it has meaning, and actions taken within the expression of that scream can be intellectual, tactful, and not solely gut reaction, but enforced by the anger and the disgust. The other critical concept, or at least as far as I got… was that revolution should be rethought of as being a constant struggle against illegitimate power and coercion, as opposed to having the traditional end goal associated with classical Marxist-Leninist thinking of acquiring power.
(This idea has manifested itself in less traditional forms of protest and rebellion as well. If you’re interested, try looking up the World Social Forum, and what it’s designed to do as an alternative to the World Economic Forum.)
The rights of workers to bargain collectively are being stripped, access to affordable education and innumerable social services are being cut to balance budgets, national and border security are used as scapegoats to gut civil liberties, soldiers are killing and raping civilians, people are being beaten and told they only have a voice on someone else’s terms. What binds these events isn’t the tragedy of their sad consequences (which are clearly distinct for different cases in their gravity), but the resultant anger that is being created. People in Libya, Syria, the UK, the US, Yemen, Bahrain, and Jordan are screaming. The world would do well to listen.
P.S.(I can do a whole other post on why anger can be a good thing and why it’s different from hate but, khalas, enough theory for tonight.)
I’m sure most of my readers are familiar with the revolutions occurring in Syria, Yemen, and Libya (especially given the commitment of American military forces in the latter). I’m less sure of how familiar my audience might be with other demonstrations occurring globally over the past few weeks. Yesterday in Great Britain hundreds of thousands of protestors took to the streets to protest massive cuts being made to critical discretionary spending there. In Georgia thousands turned out to protest a proposed immigration bill similar to the controversial one in Arizona. I’ve had a discussion before with a friend from Bates that the next “civil rights movement” in America is going to be over immigration and the rights of people who live and work within the country (and as some economic analysis shows contrary to conventional wisdom, actually help the economy), and I’d say that’s still a distinct possibility.
Also I’d like to point out the massive reaction to anti-labor legislation in Wisconsin and other states. For decades “organized” labor has merely been a nominal designation. Union membership as a percentage of the labor force is pitiful and no life seemed to be breathing within the beast that brought you the weekend and the 8 hour day. But following the introduction of such reactionary legislation, it would appear that there is a potential for a rebirth. Thousands turned out to protest the attack on public employees, and the support came from both public and private unions. The American Public shows that the cause isn’t lost either: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/us/01poll.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=poll+and+collective+bargaining&st=cse
So what do pro-labor, anti-draconian immigrant legislation, and anti-crippling austerity measure demonstrations in the West have to do with pro-democracy, anti-corruption, reform movements in the Middle East? We had a lecturer the other day who equated the revolutions to a function of pan-Arabism and drew a historical lineage from the anti-colonial liberation movements seen in Algeria against the French. He actually polled some of our Arab staff about their opinions on “Arab Unity” catching them off-guard a bit. All of the movements within the Middle East have taken on individually nationalistic tones, and the discussion of pan-Arabism seems, to me at least, to only really crop up in fanatic imaginings of the fall of the region to radical Islamists and the establishment of a Caliphate. His allusion to national liberation movements of the past holds truth, however, not in the Arab identity of the revolutionaries, but in their struggle against illegitimate coercion and power. An opposition to what felt like an affront to humanity itself. This is the link between movements East and West, and North and South.
I fortuitously chose to try to tackle a book I had picked up in early high school but struggled with shortly before coming to Jordan. I only got about half way through it before I needed to transition back to my pre-program reading assignments which I, naturally, put off till the last minute. The book is Change the World Without Taking Power: The Meaning of Revolution Today by John Holloway. It was written in the early 2000’s after the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle in ’99, and the rise of the Zapatista movement in Mexico in 1994, which he describes as the “first post-modern revolution.” Two things stick out in particular from the book. One is the concept of “the scream,” which is, in essence, a visceral response to something that seems indescribably wrong or unjust. But, though the scream is visceral, it has meaning, and actions taken within the expression of that scream can be intellectual, tactful, and not solely gut reaction, but enforced by the anger and the disgust. The other critical concept, or at least as far as I got… was that revolution should be rethought of as being a constant struggle against illegitimate power and coercion, as opposed to having the traditional end goal associated with classical Marxist-Leninist thinking of acquiring power.
(This idea has manifested itself in less traditional forms of protest and rebellion as well. If you’re interested, try looking up the World Social Forum, and what it’s designed to do as an alternative to the World Economic Forum.)
The rights of workers to bargain collectively are being stripped, access to affordable education and innumerable social services are being cut to balance budgets, national and border security are used as scapegoats to gut civil liberties, soldiers are killing and raping civilians, people are being beaten and told they only have a voice on someone else’s terms. What binds these events isn’t the tragedy of their sad consequences (which are clearly distinct for different cases in their gravity), but the resultant anger that is being created. People in Libya, Syria, the UK, the US, Yemen, Bahrain, and Jordan are screaming. The world would do well to listen.
P.S.(I can do a whole other post on why anger can be a good thing and why it’s different from hate but, khalas, enough theory for tonight.)
No comments:
Post a Comment