All-encompassing jasmine effect shakes Egypt up

The popular uprising in Egypt, the most populated and influential country in the Arab world, has created a tumult far beyond its geographical spheres. The year 2011 is now being thought of as the 1989 of West Asia. Tens of thousands of Egyptians congregating peacefully in Tahrir (Liberation) Square in Cairo reminds one of the scenes of Warsaw, Prague and Berlin — when the sudden fall of the Soviet empire led to the liberation of Eastern Europe. Is the Arab world headed for liberation and true democracy?

It all began with Tunisia. On Dec 17, Muhammad Al Bouazizi, an unemployed postgraduate, was not allowed to set up a vegetable stall by the municipal authorities.  Unable to face the grim prospe-cts of starvation of his eight member family, Al Bouazizi left a message for his mother on Facebook and set himself ablaze outside the municipality office. The fire didn’t engulf Al Bouazizi alone.  The country of ten million people, badly riddled with corruption, nepotism and unemployment, was up in flames, thus ‘igniting’ the jasmine revolution.  Within a month of vociferous protests raging across the country, Zain El Abidine Ben Ali, dictator of Tunisia since November 1987, fled.  Denied asylum by the French, the despot could only find refuge in autocratic Saudi Arabia.  

The jasmine revolution has generated hope for democracy on the Arab street. After Tunis, protests were witnessed in Algeria, Yemen and Jordan. Long shackled populations of Libya, Saudi Arabia and other countries may also rise against their rulers.  If Egypt sees a peaceful transition towards democracy, it will herald a revolution in the entire region, confirming in a sense the trend that the US vice president described as “a lot ... going on across ... from Tunisia to all the way to Pakistan”.

For the last thirty years, United States and many other western countries have supported Hosni Mubarak’s autocratic regime. So far he has been able to convince Western capitals that if his regime collapses, he will only be replaced by Islamists. For the US, it has been a choice between a democratically elected but Islamic government, and a stable pro-west authoritarian rule. This time too Hosni Mubarak tried to ‘delegitimise’ the popular uprising as inspired by ‘Islamists’. The international community, however, seems to have finally come to terms with the fact that rather than having any ideological connotations, the unrest on the Muslim street is purely driven by the dispossessed.

Meanwhile Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel laureate and former International Atomic Energy Agency chief, has fast emerged as the face of the uprising. Opposition groups, including the banned Muslim Brotherhood, have nominated ElBaradei for negotiations with the government “in anticipation of Mr Mubarak’s early exit from the political scene”. But he is not the real player. He has lived half of his life abroad and has very little support of his own among the masses. According to Middle East watchers, if elections are held today, Muslim Brotherhood will sweep the polls. And it is feared that if elected they may annul Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel signed by Anwar Sadat in 1979. Egypt was the first Arab country to officially recognise Israel. 

Judging by the intensity of the uprising, it seems that the exit of Hosni Mubarak is a foregone conclusion. Even if he defies the public mood and survives, he will be a liability, unable to serve American interests in the region. The departure of Mubarak may be considered a setback in Washington. However, if a true democracy is allowed to take root, the uprising will ultimately prove to be the ‘birth pangs’ of a new Middle East. Certainly, there is also a chance that hardliners may come to control the reins of power. But the policy of isolating the Islamists has only produced al Qaeda and its types and also made them popular on the Muslim street.

An all-inclusive approach will eventually only moderate the extremist ideologies. Even if the fringe continues to persist with its extremist mindset, it will not find many takers for its destructive agendas. Ross Douthat in his recent column in the New York Times has made a profound observation: Mubarak foreclosed any possibility of an Islamic revolution in his own country. But he also helped radicalise and internationalise his country’s Islamists, pushing men like Ayman Al-Zawahiri (arguably the real brain behind al Qaeda) out of Egyptian politics and into global jihad.

Lastly, in this world of Facebook and Twitter, the social networking platforms have proved to be immensely beneficial in organising the Arab uprising; people cannot anymore be denied the freedom of expression. Doing so will only lead to more radicalisation and bloodshed.

The writer is a Srinagar-based columnist and political analyst.