Success-failure prognostication of Arab revolts: a faulty narrative

The author

Opinion

By Ramzy Baroud

'Bizarre and incoherent' could be the most euphemistic way of collectively characterizing many narratives that run from a single development or a trend in history.  But sometimes the very opposite happens: precisely the coherence and conformity surrounding a historical development contribute to the distortion of the reality. The so called 'Arab Springs' have come as the best example of the latter phenomenon. 

Lumping the developments of the past three years in many countries in West Asia and North Africa into the apparently lofty 'Arab Spring' characterization has made the intellectual exercise of many across the world much less laborious. But what are the prices of such a characterization? How do they lead people to wrong conclusions? In this column, Ramzy Baroud answers these questions precisely but comprehensively.

Syria and Middle East: Whom to believe (and whom not to)

Jiwan Kshetry

When propaganda trumpets truth and acts of vested interests disguise as sheer altruistic deeds, it is often hard to tell black from white. Media play immense role in shaping our ideas and attitudes to every major event. What about the 'changing Middle East' then? Some insights:

First it was believed that the Arabs and Muslims were fundamentally a people suitably ruled by autocrats, backward and non-innovative. (Read Thomas Friedman's 'World is Flat').

Then everyone awoke with the realization that the opposite was indeed true. They were democracy and peace-loving people brave enough to oust the dictators with peaceful revolt. (Read all stuff written during the early days of what was then called 'Arab Spring'.)

Then the script changed even more dramatically. Peaceful attempts of the people were not enough to topple the regimes and foreign bombing was mandated to 'protect' the civilians (See what happened in Libya). Meanwhile some brutal repressions of the popular will were 'acceptable' at worst. (See what happened in Bahrain).

With all this, everything was supposed to fall on place. If only. A big 'if only'. If only the turmoil had not continued in Syria for so long. So what is the significance of the struggle raging in Syria? This is a big question for anyone interested in both international power game as well as the historical trend of different political systems.

With the trend of events over the past year, the perspectives of the changing scenario of Middle East have changed dramatically. The overt optimism all over the world in the early days of revolt about the changing Middle East has now given away to an apprehensive pessimism and this sense is now palpable in columns of analysts throughout the political spectrum.

If Tunisia represents a modest success for the revolt, Egypt's performance can be termed 'dismal'. If Bahrain epitomizes the brutally suppressed rebellion, Libya epitomizes a peaceful movement hijacked by armed militias backed by foreign hands culminating into frank mob rule.

And the ever-lasting injustice to Palestinians with the status quo means that nothing has changed radically after all despite all the boasts about the new Middle East.

But most perplexing question of the moment is which way will Syria take? Though many think Syria is too unique to follow the identical course of any other of its neighbors, a tentative comparison with Bahraini or Libyan way of conclusion of the conflict seems relevant.

What I think Syria will follow or should follow is a matter for a separate article. But here I will recommend the readers to follow some of the relevant sources so that picture of raging conflict in Syria becomes more comprehensive.