Introduction:
The world has turned into a global village causing the impact in one country to instigate riots in another part of the world. One of the major reasons behind this emergence of a village is technology. Currently, the most favored version of the technological advancement is the social media. It has played a huge role in the recent political and social changes that have taken place around the world.
Thesis:
The riots that took place in London and the wave of revolution that gripped the Middle East, starting from Egypt can be explained largely through the theories of media and social change. The massive amount of interaction and the fastest spread of news have proven to spark revolution by mobilizing a mass group of individuals. The outcome of such a news transfer is very strong as it could trigger the immediate need for social change in people.
This essay will examine the theories of revolution and then relate these theories with the existing reality of Egyptian revolution and the Syrian revolution. Crumpled by tyrants, living for decades under oppression, how the people managed to raise a voice united against this suppression requires a comparison of the demands and needs that were inherently present in the countries.
Discussion:
Egypt and Syria, both part of the Middle Eastern world, marched their way through a successful revolution unlike Libya that has been transformed into a war zone. The trigger was the same but there was a difference in the way the different countries acted out where some decided to go for a peaceful revolution leading the critics and analysts to argue against such an idea of a peaceful revolution.
The people stayed on streets and not even one of them, retreated from the idea. This revolution was beneficial to loyalists, opportunists, adventurists and everybody who had wanted to put an end to such a great deal of torture. The people were constantly voicing their opinions letting the world know how much they had suffered. The Egyptian revolution and the Syrian revolution persisted through perseverance and peace while the Libyan revolution took its literal form of violence and bloodshed and the purpose is yet to be achieved. The approaches taken by the three countries were the same, then why was one revolution a failure while others managed to be successful? There is a dire need to understand the nature of revolution in Egypt and the damaging aspect of revolution in Libya.
The Egyptian revolution is also known as the Facebook revolution. As mentioned earlier, social media, primarily Facebook played a significant role in putting an end to all the torture that had entrapped the country. The ability to communicate independently and the accessibility to all the videos posted on You tube with regard to the violent events shaping in the country, this is what strengthened the support of the people towards a progression into the protests and while there had been minimal protests going on earlier, the video of one man’s tragedy led uncovered the situation that was present in Egypt all along. The once- authoritarian regime of Egypt turned into a lawless and an ineffective regime immediately as people gathered at Tahrir Square.
On the other hand, the Libyan revolution was a result of the inspiration that came from Egyptian revolution.
After the success of Egyptian revolution, a wave of hatred and uprisings started in the Middle East giving others in the Middle East hope for a new beginning. The success of the pioneers of the revolution led others to believe that they could fight and mobilize their forces and fight the existing forces. However, while other countries paved their way through the revolution fairly peacefully, the story of Libya was different. It is because of the ruler who determined to hold onto his regime unless he was forced to a sentence on 21st October 2011. Muhammad Gaddhafi’s tyrannical personality and determination to ‘never give up on his power’ caused Libyan loyalists and revolutionists to fight for the rights.
While trying to understand the problem of ‘revolution’, the intention would be to mainly summarize the research of the other historians in explaining revolution and its typology, causes and outcomes. The discussion will be limited to the different kinds of theories that have been proposed over the years and then the best suited theory for the Egyptian and Libyan revolution will be chosen for a much detailed understanding of the varying nature of the two revolutions. As already established, the length of time for the Egyptian uprising and the Libyan uprising was different where the former achieved success fairly quickly as compared to the Libyans.
In a layman’s term, revolution is defined as the lengthy period of social and economic developments being halted by a sharp retreat. This is when the fear of ‘losing power’ in people becomes obvious pushing them towards wearing revolutionary attire.
Most of the revolutionary changes that have come in the world can be explained through this simple definition. The Egyptian revolution, Russian revolution and Dorr’s rebellion could be explained through this understanding of the phenomenon of revolution.
Among a huge number of theories presented by many people, Marx and Engels have provided the theory that has led to a deeper understanding of the need for revolution. Their theory has been based on the outcome of the industrial class.
Marx believed that when there is an economic degradation in society where there is existing disparity between the social classes such as the poor getting more poor and the rich keeps getting rich, due to the presence of a detestable social system, this is when the need for change creeps into society. The Capitalist society causes the capital to accumulate only in the hands of the rich and this force the poor to take up violence and aggression to deal with the growing disparity.
Through their united efforts, the poor stands against the rich to put an end to their growing power and then the society undergo a major change. It experiences a new kind of change where there is initially lawlessness and then a new social order is formed.
Marx’s theory of economic degradation has been used to explain the revolutionary changes that are found in countries that experience such increase in social stratification such as the London riots of 2011 were inexplicably, a cause of the social stratification where the capitalist model of economics sparked hatred and enmity in the people leading them to revolt against their own economic model. (Orbell and Shay, 2011)
However, Marx has also presented a parallel theory that stands on the principle of economic rise. In this model of economic change, the society experiences an increase in wages. (Cavalluzzo, 2011) The labor class finds itself progressing continuously, enjoying an increase in wealth leading them to enjoy a lot of benefits. This increase in wealth reduces the gap between the social levels creating social tension among the rich social class.
They feel that with the labor class gradually progressing, their status quo is changing and the rise in wealth reduces the presence of the labor class as people are now socially mobile because they are moving from one particular standing to the next. This allows the people to witness a huge variety of changes causing them to experience a great deal of enjoyment and see how people function in their daily lives. This rise in social tension causes clashes between the two groups and now the need is for power. The rich do not want to lose their power over the poor. This sparks a revolution in society.
There is also another definition of revolution which explains the elements that participate together to bring about a change in the social structure. This definition identifies revolution as the change that is induced in society, regime or government, through the use of violent means. The historians who presented this definition are Louis Gottschalk and Crane Brinton. (Istrate, 2012)In this theory of revolution, there is a need for three things to interact for the change to come. These include the need for violence. However, in a revolution, sometimes, the amount of violence that is used to bring social change is unnecessary and unneeded.
This is why revolutions are feared by society because they result in bloodshed and deaths. The society is basically referred to as the communal solidarity that is also remarked as the collective consciousness that leads people towards change.
This is why revolutions are deemed important as they allow individuals to feel united under the banner as was the case in Egypt where the social media played the role of uniting people to fight for a common goal. The change is brought against the government or a constitutional structure which has taken over a figure of dictatorship and tyranny. The people tend to fight for a common goal enjoying the way they live and seek goals. Apart from the element which is to be changed i.e. government, there is also the regime which could be either a political or military regime that is being fought against by the people.
There are mainly four types of revolution which consist of mass revolution, revolutionary coup, palace revolution, reform coup. Egyptian revolution was a consequence of ass revolution where the mass participation was unimaginably high. It was a revolution of the people. The duration of this kind of violence is unusually high as was evident from the case of the Libyan revolution where the length of time to overthrow the kingdom was unimaginably high. (Cavalluzzo, 2011)
Comparing the Egyptian revolution and the Libyan revolution in terms of the amount of violence involved, then there was extreme violence in Libyan revolution which fulfills the definition of the revolutionary phenomenon given above while the Egyptian revolution started peacefully and while, the trouble makers intended to create havoc by turning the peaceful demonstration into a violent one.
The people fought to remain determined on their mission of achieving revolution peacefully.
The theory of revolution that is best-suited to the phenomenon of revolution that drove the two countries towards social change is the one proposed by Tocqueville. In his theory of revolution, he proposed that revolution is a unified attempt to defeat the elite who have dominated the social, political and economic reins of the country. His definition was further advanced by the revolutionist Crane Brinton who differentiated between the two different types of coup such as the one where the elite fights against the elite and the other that aims to bring about an end to a social, political and economic regime. This is the kind of revolution that has been witnessed in countries like Russia and Mexico (Istrate, 2012). The idea of revolution that was seen in Libya and Egypt was one filled political, social and economic upheavals. The attempts were made to turn them down and allow people to experience a different kind of social structure which would let them think openly and feel a new kind of reform. Muhammad Gadhafi’s tyrannical rule could be seen by the fact that Libya’s violence became even bitter and the forces and United Nations was called to intervene to settle the situation in the country. The revolution in Libya turned into a civil war where the mass revolution changed into a revolutionary coup fighting like military men, pledging themselves to death to turn down the leadership of the dictator, Muhammad Gadhafi. During the time when the revolution sparked itself in Libya, the statements made by Gadhafi for the people who fought against him to end
his rule, calling the names like ‘cockroaches’ and ‘rats’, this stirred further hatred among the people who started calling him a dictator and this is when the full force of the people in the form of aggression came out and burnings, lootings and killings started on a large scale causing people to wreak havoc but simply put an end to his rule. Muhammad Gadhafi was the man of his words and this is why, his egoism did not let him turn away from the problems of his time. His son, Saif-al-Islam Gadhafi, passed a statement saying, “his family will fight to last man and woman bullet” (Istrate, 2012). It is this thinking of never giving up that the people were forced to show their force through unspeakable lengths of aggression.
In the case of the revolution experienced by both the countries, the details have revealed that it had been in the making for centuries. The revolution that appeared to have sparked so suddenly and unbelievably in Egypt was a result of years and years of revolutionary tactics. The violence and riots were all unexpected. The collective behavior that was observed in Egypt and Libya was inconceivable. (Al-qudsi Ghabra, 2012) Everyone was on the streets. Plundering and pillaging everyone and everything, immorality was at its peak. Monsters were unleashed. These recent incidents in the city have loomed over many questions. What caused this? A country that used to boast about their ‘white man’s burden’ of civilizing the inferior nations, trespassing every land considering it their right, was displaying heinous acts itself. No adequate control was taken. The system had collapsed.
Collective behavior, being a sociological term, results due to several reasons. There are several pre-conditions that must be met for such behavior to result. What were the pre-conditions in London that triggered violence?
However, rumors have spread that the riots were due to social tensions. Quite unimaginably, these rumors are true. The centuries old hatred that the social tensions actually finally blasted in the city. However, is it wise to label it a racial outburst? It is an undeniable fact that London is home to diverse ethnicities. According to a historian Porter, “These racial tensions he associates with poverty, unemployment, rotten housing and a growing bush war between common men and the police, but not with racial discrimination or hostility on the part of whites.” (Lih, 2012)
The devastating revolutionary changes that took birth in both the countries were not a single day’s doing. They had existed for centuries where people had been living the lifestyle filled with the need to fight for social changes. Those who argued against the revolution reasons believed that somewhere, deep within, the racial conflict was also a reason. However, the most obvious notion is that Egypt and Libya saw these revolutionary phases because of the political structure that was causing harm to the people in every way. The people suffered greatly at the hands of the world and this had caused them to know everything about the way they lived.
The Libyan revolution was filled with bloodshed all along and the intervention made by the United Nations resulted in more people siding together to deal with a huge number of people who merely wanted to know what kind of trouble they were all facing. This is why the people mainly suffered and they had to put up with a long wait and tolerance to fight Gadhafi to resignation. The nature of revolution was the same in both countries in their idea of turning down a power that had plagued them and affected them greatly. The people were suffering and they were willing to know the risks and dangers posed to them by their own people.
Conclusion
The political structure and the tyrannical rule are not easy to stand up to in the world today. The present world is governed with democracy where the voice of the people is given a much greater importance than anything. Had Egypt not had access to the social media, would a revolution have been possible? It could be thoroughly questioned with the way the social order exists in the world today where people are more concerned with the approaches that are present rather than anything else. If the social media had not been present, the exchange for ideas which is needed for social mobility and for an effective, large-scale action, it would not have emerged as successfully as it eventually did. (Orbell and Shay, 2011)
Since the people managed to fight the revolution, this is because of the growing need for being able to express them. The people wanted the chance to express themselves and through this method of expression, the people managed to understand everything and this is why they geared up for action, enabling them to fight and mobilize themselves for action in society. The revolution was need for a good reason in society and it also resulted in a huge change that is now apparent in the two countries.
References
Alqudsi-ghabra, T. (2012). Creative use of Social Media in the Revolutions of Tunisia, Egypt & Libya. International Journal Of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 6(6), 147-158.
Cavalluzzo, J. (2011). Egypt's Cultural Revolution. Social Policy, 41(4), 75-77.
Istrate, L. (2012). The Revolution begun in Tahrir Square was not a tahrir*. Egypt in the XXIth century. Scientific Journal Of Humanistic Studies, 4(6), 115-126.
Lih, L. T. (2012). Democratic Revolution in Permanenz. Science & Society, 76(4), 433-462. doi:10.1521/siso.2012.76.4.433
Orbell, J. M., & Shay, R. (2011). Toward a theory of revolution: The legacy of James C. Davies in historical perspective. Politics & The Life Sciences, 30(1), 85-90. doi:10.2990/30185
