Ok, I give up: Why do demonstrations force regime change?

[Malthus]

@Superhal

Demonstrations are the first step to violence. Usually, demonstrations are a warning that violence will follow unless demands are met.

However, if the ruling party has overwhelming force, a demonstration has no value. This is Ghandi’s gift to humanity: the force of the passive demonstration in affecting world opinion, which then causes change, indirectly.

Afaik, no demonstration has been successful unless it attracts more people than the standing army.

People often forget that the “Gandhi option” only works on those regimes suceptible to moral suasion. Regimes that are not can happily ignore it indefinitely - see the sad fate of the Tibetian cause vs. China. The current Dalai Lama & his followers does Gandhi proud, to little practical effect - evidently modern China isn’t like early 20th century Britain.

Sadly, a ruling party which has overwhelming force, is willing and able to use it, and is not moved by moral suasion cannot be brought down by popular uprisings in any form. They must either decay from within to the point that they lose control of their monopoly of power, become more humane, or be overthrown by outside forces.

[Electric_Warrior]

Rules only exist as long as they’re followed. The citizens of Egypt are basically going on strike. The government is losing power because no one is obeying Mubarak.

[Freudian_Slit]

@KneadToKnow

I don’t either, FWIW. I’m simply curious to know where the OP is from, because culturally, they’re on the other side of the world from me. My WLG* would no sooner have allowed me to post the given metaphor than to call a five-year-old African American male a “boy.”

Do you mean you won’t address him as boy? (Makes sense.) Or that you wouldn’t describe him as a boy? The latter seems bizarre.

[Inigo_Montoya]

@Freudian_Slit

Do you mean you won’t address him as boy? (Makes sense.) Or that you wouldn’t describe him as a boy? The latter seems bizarre.

“See that boy over there?” A white guy can say that about a non-Black kid and nobody’d think anything of it. Say it about a Black kid, though, and you’re dancing with racism.

[Shmendrik]

@Inigo_Montoya

“See that boy over there?” A white guy can say that about a non-Black kid and nobody’d think anything of it. Say it about a Black kid, though, and you’re dancing with racism.

I prefer one-stepping with oversensitivity or polka-ing with political correctness.

[KneadToKnow]

@Inigo_Montoya

“See that boy over there?” A white guy can say that about a non-Black kid and nobody’d think anything of it. Say it about a Black kid, though, and you’re dancing with racism.

Exactly. Especially if you’re a Southern white guy.

[AK84]

@Superhal

However, if the ruling party has overwhelming force, a demonstration has no value. This is Ghandi’s gift to humanity: the force of the passive demonstration in affecting world opinion, which then causes change, indirectly.

Gandhi’s demonstrations turned violent and vicioulsy so most of the time. So hardly a gift to humanity.

[Colibri]

@Freudian_Slit

Do you mean you won’t address him as boy? (Makes sense.) Or that you wouldn’t describe him as a boy? The latter seems bizarre.

@Inigo_Montoya

“See that boy over there?” A white guy can say that about a non-Black kid and nobody’d think anything of it. Say it about a Black kid, though, and you’re dancing with racism.

@Shmendrik

I prefer one-stepping with oversensitivity or polka-ing with political correctness.

[Moderating]

I think this discussion is a bit of a sidetrack. I don’t see anything problematic about the OP’s reference to primate societies. If you want to discuss the propriety of this reference, please take it to IMHO or the Pit. Let’s stick to the issue of dictatorial regime change here.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Shmendrik]

@AK84

Gandhi’s demonstrations turned violent and vicioulsy so most of the time. So hardly a gift to humanity.

Cite?

[wmfellows]

@lazybratsche

… Right now pretty much everything is shut down in Tunis and Egypt (at least around Cairo). …

Worth noting that BBC is running a banner saying that Tunisia is lifting its state of emergency next week. I also hear from friends with business there that things are actually pretty normal feeling. Can’t attest myself, but what I hear from them (they have textile concerns).

[AK84]

@Shmendrik

Cite?

Khilafat Movement, Moppla Rebellion, Salt march, Quit India, Peshawar Protests.
etc etc etc.
Would be easier to find something which didn’t turn violent,

[Steve_MB]

@Malthus

People often forget that the “Gandhi option” only works on those regimes suceptible to moral suasion. Regimes that are not can happily ignore it indefinitely - see the sad fate of the Tibetian cause vs. China. The current Dalai Lama & his followers does Gandhi proud, to little practical effect - evidently modern China isn’t like early 20th century Britain.

Sadly, a ruling party which has overwhelming force, is willing and able to use it, and is not moved by moral suasion cannot be brought down by popular uprisings in any form. They must either decay from within to the point that they lose control of their monopoly of power, become more humane, or be overthrown by outside forces.

The Tibetan case differs from the Tunisian and Egyptian cases in that it affects only a peripheral part of (what China claims as) the nation. When something like this spreads across the core of the nation, the economic and social effects lead directly to that “decay from within to the point that they lose control of their monopoly of power” option.

[Malthus]

@Steve_MB

The Tibetan case differs from the Tunisian and Egyptian cases in that it affects only a peripheral part of (what China claims as) the nation. When something like this spreads across the core of the nation, the economic and social effects lead directly to that “decay from within to the point that they lose control of their monopoly of power” option.

Gandhi was working on a peripheral part of the British Empire. The Tibetan case is actually a better example of where moral suasion can work - an essentially colonial enterprise.

If the revolt in Egypt were to succeed (and I’m starting to think it isn’t going to), it will not be an example of the “Gandhi option”, as it is more of a traditional revolt - which carries with it the threat, if not necessarily the reality, of violence. The threat in this case being that if the dictator does not succeed and the army stands aside, he risks ending up like Ceauşescu, or Mussolini - hanging upside down to be abused by the mob.

While non-violent resistance can work to sap the legitimacy of a “core” regime (and hence of its monopoly of power), it usually takes force - either express or in threat - to lever one out of the driver’s seat.

[md2000]

Churchill IIRC hated Ghandi and called him a hypocrite - because Ghandi claimed non-violence but knew every time he was arrested for whatever he did the whole country rioted and hundreds died. The British didn’t eventually give up because they were ashamed of arresting Ghandi, they gave up because they could not control the riots.

In Egypt, control like most dictatorships has been by attacking any sign of dissent. Independent parties, student rganizations, brotherhoods, or anything that allowed organization outside the ruling party was suppressed. From what the news has mentioned, it was the usual mix. Stick your head up too high, you get arrested. Create too much waves, the plainclothes goons come around and beat you up. Fake charges get you sent to jail; interrogation using time-honored techniques are applied to ensure you are not a front for a more nefarious group, or paid by outside agitators. Too many people gathering together attract riot squads aided by the plainclothes goons.

The control relies on the fact that everyone is afraid. Thus, the police force can intimidate millions one at a time.

What’s ahppened in Egypt isthat finally too many people became uppity at once. First, there were so many that the riotsquad and goons were routed, and much of their equipment was burned. Then Mubarak tried the “shut everything down and blame it on the rioters, let them rampage and people will call on us to restore order” but between vigilante squads and well-behaved protestors that did not happen. They thought about sending in the army, but it seems all up and down the command chain, the army - still respected - did not want to be equated with the hired goons. “not in our job description”.

Then he tried sending in the hired goons, including the goon cavalry. That still did not work. Looks like the final tactic is “what if we ignore them?”, let the banks open etc.

Several problems still remain. With the protesters at large, and things still in minor chaos, the tourist industry which is the biggest part of the economy will probably stay dried up until tihngs are resolved. Also, how do you keep control now that nobody is afraid of your goons? Try to enforce anything unpopular and the extra few million who have gone home will happily come out next protest and shut the city down again. The government will now be scared of taking any significant action.

Finally, what appears to have triggered these actions is reducing subsidies. With an economy and employment numbers that make the USA look like a wild boom, the Egyptian government is forced to subsidize food and other basic commodities so its poorest can afford to even eat. Running out of money and cutting those subsidies is what has led to the riots. Can they seriously cut now? But they can’t afford to pay any longer, and the tanked tourist industry means meeting the bills will be even tougher. The bond rating already fell, what do you think it will look like by September?

Given this contradictory situation, if Mubarak does not leave, then odds are there is someone else who isn’t headed for a permanent Caymans vacation in September or wants to be number one, or who actually cares about the country, or just wants to get even - who will start suggesting to his cronies it’s time for a palace revolt. Usually it’s the generals, but if they are too blind, it’s the colonels, or even the liuetenants. Was it Liberia where a sargeant lead the revolt? They may coopt civilians to run some of the departments, but the guys with guns usually have the power and size of organization to take over.

So that’s what we’re waiting for. (they’re waiting for) For someone(s) high enough to say “the damage is too much, time to go”. Seriously, though, do you think anyone inMubarak’s inner circle is wondering “How can I win the people’s vote in September” or do you think they are wondering - “how can I keep a lid on things and steal the vote by September”?

[md2000]

Saw a videoclip on the BBC web site from a reporter who decided to go see how things were outside Cairo, in the smaller towns near tourist areas. The people around the Giza site were extremely annoyed at the protestors because it cut off their livelihood - no tourists. I believe the guy said they next went to Saqarra, where there were other tourist attractions. At first locals spoke (reluctantly) then they were surrounded by a gang of “vigilantes” and the police and army had to rescue them. Apparently some of the less literate took to heart the government line that foreign journalists were actuallyforeign (Israeli) spies and “enemies of the people”.

Anther example of short-term thinking by the government - it will certainly be a while before tourists return if this is the welcome they can expect.

So- the economic problems will continue and get worse. As long as the protesters are in Tahrir square, no western country will suggest tourists go to Egypt. There goes a significant source of employment and revenue. The protesters’ main demand is that Mubarak go. Someone in the ranks will soon figure out they can get the counry moving again by simply driving a few tanks out to the presidential palace and arresting him. First one to do this (and succeed) becomes a hero in the eyes of the people. Do you think this hasn’t occurred to quite a few officers?

[AK84]

@md2000

Churchill IIRC hated Ghandi and called him a hypocrite - because Ghandi claimed non-violence but knew every time he was arrested for whatever he did the whole country rioted and hundreds died. The British didn’t eventually give up because they were ashamed of arresting Ghandi, they gave up because they could not control the riots.

Old saying about Gandhi, “It cost a lot of money to keep him poor”. We can add :“it took a lot of non violence to keep his philosophy of non-violence”.

[Tom_Scud]

At this point the tourist trade for 2011 is shot for Egypt regardless of what happens from here on out; I’m sure everyone’s already cancelled their reservations by now.

[md2000]

@Tom_Scud

At this point the tourist trade for 2011 is shot for Egypt regardless of what happens from here on out; I’m sure everyone’s already cancelled their reservations by now.

Plus of course, there will be 6 months or more of one of those lively 3rd-world election campaigns. Or… protests as the crowds think the regime is trying to short-circuit any of the reform process.

Looks like the Army is about to announce they are taking control. The question is whether the crooks in charge now get to withdraw quietly, or as in the famous last words of Mrs. Ceaucescu, “Nikki, they’re going to shoot us!”

[Rusalka]

@KneadToKnow

Wow. You don’t often hear African people compared to apes any more.

Where you from, sassyfras?

Wasn’t it obvious from sassyfras’ choice of name that he/she is probably American? I surmise that he/she is most likely from the southern or eastern part of the U.S. . The use of the name of a plant not known to most people outside of the U.S., coupled with a pun makes it a pretty sure bet.

I think the analogy was not intended to be racist. When she used it, I thought of mobsters, not African-Americans.

As to the O.P.,

1. Everyone seems to be speculating, have any social scientists addressed this question in a book or research paper?

2. Mubarak has been in power 30 years, why did this happen now?

[DSeid]

So the people power protests work when the enforcers decide to not enforce but instead to tell the top guy that his time is up.

Which then begs the question.

The issue is when it is the enforcers interest to see regime change compared to the other options.

The powers of the military have great personal economic interests in the Egyptian economy. The unrest is hurting those interests. A bloody crackdown would not protect those interests. Putting another face on top that will operate within the space they declare is permissible and making some small moves to a somewhat less oppressive and corrupt system - that preserves their business interests.

China’s enforcers OTOH had nothing at risk by following orders, much to risk by not, and the leaders of those enforcers had only things to lose (they perceived) by making concessions.

Why now? I had heard a report that it began with a middle class man beaten by the police and that becoming a cause celeb on Egyptian Facebook. In short, becoming a bit more oppressive in a new media world which made censorship and controlling the available messaging untenable.