"The Jasmine Revolution - A Precursor?"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“The Jasmine Revolution – A Precursor?’

January 18, 2011

A small country can, at times, have an out-sized effect. Tunisia may be such an example. It is too early to know for certain. Despite winning re-election with 90% of the popular vote in 2009, despot Zine El Abidine Ben Ali proved not to be that popular. While Tunisia never had the sectarian violence that mars so much of the Middle East, nor was Mr. Ben Ali an Islamicized leader, he did run what amounted to a police state, was personally corrupt and his family allegedly worse. WikiLeaks, in a demonstration that hockey sticks-in-the-air is a universal sign of victory, took credit for the success of what is being called the Jasmine Revolution. President Obama welcomed Friday’s overthrow of Mr. Ben Ali as “this brave and determined struggle for universal rights.”

For decades after World War II the concept of Realpolitik – the basing of foreign policy on practical, rather than moral or ideological grounds – determined the way Western nations dealt with totalitarian regimes. Reason held sway over theory. In 1986, Perestroika provided a glimpse that Soviet citizens wanted freedom. A year later President Reagan went to Berlin and gave the speech in which he demanded, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Nevertheless, most of the West felt that the world had to be dealt with as it is, not as some Western democrat preferred it to be. And Realpolitik continued to be the path of least resistance for most in the West when dealing with the Arab world and their autocratic rulers.

However, the advent of the internet changed things, as it has played a powerful role in the spread of freedom. There may be those who will choose mercantilism, swathed in a system that stifles freedom, like China, but e-mail, twitter and Facebook have revolutionized the spreading of ideas, including democracy. It is a genie that is anti-despotic and will prove very difficult to re-bottle. Nevertheless, President Obama, early in his administration and perhaps as a way of distancing himself from his predecessor, downplayed the concept of a “freedom agenda.” For example, Mr. Obama chose not to support the “Green” movement in Iran during their 2009 presidential election.

For years, the U.S. (and Europe) supported Arab dictators based on the concept that they were the only alternative to radical Islam. That is until President Bush made “freedom agenda” a policy of his administration and England’s Prime Minister Tony Blair identified “aspiration” as a critical element in the minds of people who wanted freedom above protection. Both Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush have been vilified, in this regard, for their role as it applies to Iraq. Partisan condemnation of Bush for allegedly promoting freedom at the end of a gun gave (wrongly, in my opinion) America’s support for democracies a bad name. But events have caused policy wonks to reconsider. Argentina seems to be slipping back into totalitarianism. The successful financial rise of an autocratic China and the apparent decline of democracy in Russia further impacted enthusiasm by the West for democracy promotion. So, in recent months it appears that that policy will be reversed and that encouraging democracies will continue to be an integral component of the United States’ foreign policy. Mr. Obama’s words last Friday indicate a change.

According to an issue last March in the Weekly Standard, if democracy and human rights do become a priority for the Obama administration, it will be in no small part because of the influence in internal debates of Michael McFaul, a senior director for Russian and Eurasian affairs on the National Security Council and former faculty member at Stanford. Professor McFaul argues that those who constitute the “renaissance of realists” are simply wrong when they argue that democracy can only be achieved after a certain level of economic development, or that transitions cause instability, or that attempts at democracy open these countries to radical undemocratic forces. “Officials,” he says “must remember the moral, security and economic interest the United States has in promoting democracy.” He also believes that, if truly successful, ultimately the idea of promoting democracy will devolve from Washington to places like New Delhi and Santiago; but for the foreseeable future American leadership remains indispensable.

It is far too early to predict what will happen in Tunisia, but the overthrow of a despotic Arab leader by pro-democracy forces is not a common event. It is a big deal. Tunisia is a small nation – no larger than Wisconsin – with a population just over 10 million, 98% of whom are Arab. It is Africa’s northernmost country, sitting between Algeria to the west and Libya to the south and east. It is a member of both the Arab League and the African Union. However, in the 2010 Press Freedom Index it ranked 164 of 178 nations. Similarly, the Economist’s Democracy Index for 2010 ranked Tunisia 144 of 169. As Roula Khalaf wrote in the weekend edition of the Financial Times, “a regime that rules by fear loses its balance once that wall of fear is shattered.”

It is the association of western values with democracy that have made so many in other parts of the world skeptical of promoting democracy; yet the desire to live freely is universal. And that is what the people of Tunisia have chosen. This revolt against tyranny should remind the West of the moral force behind President Bush’s Freedom Agenda. Should they be successful, the ramifications will be felt in places like Cairo and Tehran and the world will be a better place. The people of Tunisia must have felt comforted with President Obama’s words, recognizing their plight and hailing their victory in ridding the world of one more dictator. And we should all hope that what happened in Tunisia does not stay in Tunisia.