Tipping Points

There have been some excellent articles in the Guardian Weekly recently about the Arab uprisings, many of them drawn from the Observer.

A couple of articles have discussed what it takes for an uprising to build enough momentum to become unstoppable. This is a very topical point, as the current action in Libya carries so much risk.

An uprising often starts with a single incident. The man who set fire to himself in the Tunis market is a classic example. That incident becomes a topic of conversation across the country, with sympathies often starting at a very micro level and then building into more widespread discontent with the ruling group, especially if they mishandle the incident.

Then you get some youth, some students, some active political people and some general troublemakers starting a series of demonstrations. That in itself is easily quelled. The problems for rulers start when the scale of these protests ratchets up to include the middle class.

When does that happen? Well for a start, the middle class have to have some latent discontent, deeper than the normal moaning we all have about any government. If all we can complain about are some thuggish tactics and rulers lining their pockets, the middle class won’t join in. If the thuggish tactics are so widespread that middle class people know victims personally that is more serious. And if middle class people see economic suffering of their own kind – maybe their children or less well off relatives – then they may act. In the current Arab cases, the role of steeply rising food prices should not be underestimated.

Then, there is the role of police, army and secret police. Once they cut the rug from under the regime, the game is up. Facebook and the like have had an impact as a catalyst – it has become easier to communicate informally, widely and safely.

If the latent discontent is there, the response of the state to the early protests becomes crucial, and it is a hard balance to strike. Bribes might work, but only if the latent discontent is mild enough. Brutality might work too, if it is focused enough. But too passive a response takes away the risk of joining in, while unfocused brutality may simply create a rage which brings people out in solidarity despite the risk.

In Libya we now reach an extra stage. The middle class, at least in Tripoli, has yet to declare rebellion, and the army and secret police are largely intact too. And Gaddafi has been handed a joker, in the form of foreign interference. The middle class can be relied upon to be patriotic, and foreign airplanes are generally an affront to patriotism. Many things amazed me during the time of the Iraq invasion, but the thing that astounded me most was the belief among the US troops that they would be welcomed in the streets.

So, Libya is now very delicate indeed. Gaddafi will be irrational but ruthless cunning. The international forces will be cautious and limited by fickle public support. This could get nasty.

It is tempting to think of people under repressive regimes as being rather cowardly. Perhaps we think we would take action ourselves, joining the rebellions at an early stage?

I think this misunderstands the way our minds work. Most of the time, we are driven more by avoiding disaster rather than seeking tough potential opportunities. In many situations, we weigh the risk of action more heavily than the possible benefit. I think if we look hard and honestly we can find examples from our own past. Perhaps a neighbourhood gang was acting anti-socially or with racism, and we chose to ignore rather than intervene? Perhaps people at our work were breaking laws or treating fellow employees badly?

In these situations, acting also tends to become harder rather than easier over time. We scoff at the Germans for embracing Hitler but I’m not sure other so-called educated nations would not have done the same.

Even if someone joining a rebellion doesn’t fall prey to the secret police, it is far from obvious that life after Gaddafi will be a major improvement on life now. I saw this myself in the early 1990’s in Eastern Europe. True, the people had some freedom, and indeed the long-term result of the revolutions has been of net benefit, at least to younger generations. But freedom doesn’t count for much when the electricity only works for two hours per day and basic healthcare is suddenly unaffordable. Which is better, a shop with only five items but all affordable, or one with a hundred, all out of reach? These were the initial outcomes in Eastern Europe.

At least we are mature enough not to fall for the patriotism card. Or are we? I’m convinced that the fuss in the UK about prisoners having the vote is entirely because the directive came from a foreign body. More trivially, think back to England losing out on the 2018 World Cup – even seasoned commentators left their brains somewhere then.

And, despite Facebook, we can still be manipulated by our establishments. The craven coverage of the Libya operation on British television rings like propaganda to me, with MOD statements accepted without challenge, and the prescribed language (allies, coalition, international community) used all the time. Why has no commentator asked a military expert whether Libya could strike us, or at least Sicily? My suspicion is because the question is uncomfortable and the establishment has decreed it off limits. And of course media manipulation in Libya will be many times more pervasive and long-lasting than what we see here.

So, tipping points come a little easier nowadays, but are still hard to reach. And, putting myself in the shoes of a middle class worker in Tripoli, listening in fear to foreign airplanes over the head of my kids each night, I think I can see why.