The echoes of the Arab Spring can also be felt in Latvia

Ten years ago, in March 2011, the arrest of some Syrian students and the mass demonstrations caused by these arrests began the main escalation of the Syrian tragedy, which has now somewhat subsided but has not been successfully resolved. Time has passed, and now we can assess the impact of the Arab Spring on both the situation in the Middle East and the general political climate in the world, including Latvia.

In politics, as in other spheres, the details fade from memory over time, and only the general outline of things remains. In this case, it is the unfortunate realization that the revolutionary changes that began in the Maghreb ten years ago have not led to any significant improvements in the lives of the people who live there. Thus, a seemingly logical conclusion can be formed that revolutions do not make any sense, because they do not make anything better. Why is it only seemingly logical?

Because the world is evolving and social processes cannot remain set in stone. If in some Arab countries infected tumors had formed for decades, then sooner or later they would burst. From a historical point of view, it did not matter whether it happened in 2011 or in, say, 2013. In the Arab world, revolutions had matured and were inevitable. Sooner or later. Their results are mixed, with external players actively intervening in some countries. It is there - in Syria and Libya - that the outcome is also the saddest. In Tunisia and Egypt, on the other hand, without the active participation of external forces, the transfer of power was relatively peaceful.

Developments in Egypt, in my view, illustrate most clearly the overall situation in the region. In 2011, it had been ruled for thirty years by the unchanging President Hosni Mubarak, who came to power after the death of Anwar Sadat in the assassination on October 6, 1981, during a military parade in Cairo. Although Egypt experienced a relatively rapid boom in these thirty years, society was simply tired from Mubarak. Politicians, like pop stars, start boring people over time. They want something new, unprecedented. The sharp rise in bread prices in this case only acted as a catalyst for change.

All due respect to Mubarak, because he was sensible enough (or perhaps not convinced enough) not to resort to sharp repression against the people. He resigned voluntarily and free, democratic elections were held in the country. They were won by the Muslim Brotherhood that was underground during Mubarak's time, which is difficult to call democratic. It has been proven empirically, in a way that everyone can understand and in a relatively peaceful way, that Egyptian society has not yet grown to democracy. Therefore, the army, led by field marshal Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, soon took the wheel in their own hands. Until the next time, when the development of the society has reached such a level that the democratic system of public administration would not be repelled, but would grow as compatible.

In Libya and Syria, the process became much more bloody, as some external players (Turkey, Russia, Iran, the Gulf monarchies) intervened actively, while others (primarily the United States) were extremely passive, allowing the former to act freely in the area, without taking into account the interests of the people living there. It is imperative to shed light on a Russian propaganda myth, which is also quite widespread in our public space.

One of the central theses of Putin's doctrine is that all world revolutions are organized and controlled by the puppet masters overseas. The so-called Americans (in no way identified and not to be confused with real US leaders) stand behind all the riots against state power. This myth is extremely convenient and beneficial for dictators because it allows you not to admit that you are to blame for the people's dissatisfaction. I'm doing everything right and the people love me endlessly, it's those damn Americans who are ruining everything.

This myth is closely intertwined with another thesis of Putin's doctrine, which strictly divides society into two categories - "losers" and "kingpins". The former are deprived of any right to delegate power. The people (losers) have nothing to do with power (kingpins). Therefore, the "losers" must live with the power they have without whining, and any attempt to get rid of the "kingpins" of power must be burned out with a white-hot iron. According to this doctrine, as soon as Russia saw that the United States in the person of Barack Obama did not show any activity in overthrowing Assad, the Butcher of Damascus (the 2013 situation with ignoring Obama's drawn red lines), it started moving and, along with Iran, defended the power of Assad.

Admittedly, the myth of the omnipresent "Americans" was not born exactly out of thin air, as the Vietnam War, the invasion of Iraq and other lesser-known interventions cannot be denied, as is Washington's support for "democratic" forces around the world. But to say that the United States started the Arab Spring, Ukraine, Georgia, or some other revolution means to look at everything through the reality-distorting Kremlin propaganda glasses, because no revolution can be started without an objective basis.

If we talk about the lessons of the Arab Spring and its impact on the processes in the world, then we see that it also has some influence (it is difficult to say how big) on the political processes taking place in Latvia. If ten years ago there was a relatively revolutionary mood in Latvia, which culminated in the dismissal of the Saeima and the only extraordinary elections in the history of Latvia, now, ten years later, the slogan of the authorities - can't change horses in midstream - resonates with many people and they are lulled into apathetic sleep.

Apparently, the echo of the Arab Spring and the Latvian analogue of that time - "Order no. 2” on the dismissal of the Saeima - is in effect: change the power as much as you want, nothing will change anyway. Well, what's the difference, is Kariņš, Pavļuts or someone else sitting there? If it is unlikely to get better, then just let the same old ones remain. But always remember that the idea of ​​doing nothing just so things don't get worse is fundamentally wrong.

This is clearly at odds with the basic principles of development. As Jack Nicholson's rendition of Randle McMurphy said in director Miloš Forman's legendary film One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest: "But I tried, didn't I? Goddamnit, at least I did that." We must try. Even if it sometimes fails.

*****

Be the first to read interesting news from Latvia and the world by joining our Telegram and Signal channels.