Unrest in Cairo

It’s interesting to compare the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings with the tragic failure of the similar movement in Iran. All of them shared numerous features in common, including the use of social networks like Facebook and Twitter for organization. The obvious difference is that Iran was willing to murder protestors in order to bring them under control – not just deaths in the heat of battle against riot police, but straight-up executions. The more subtle difference is that Iran did a better job of convincing the general population that the protests were futile.

Autocratic control over an uneasy population requires trapping the citizens in a fog of isolation and hopelessness. Everyone must feel they walk alone through a sea of potential informers. The key ingredient for establishing a dictatorship is revolutionary fervor, but the essential ingredient for maintaining one is despair.

In Tunisia, economic deprivation, widespread unemployment, and distaste for a corrupt government became common denominators that helped individual citizens realizeeveryone was unhappy. At that point, the matter becomes a contest of wills between a determined populace, and weary authoritarians who must decide how many bullets they’re willing to invest in continued power. President Ben Ali lost the contest.

The religious character of the Iranian dictatorship is a valuable weapon in its arsenal. Their brand of totalitarian Islam is very useful for convincing individual citizens that resistance equals opposing the will of the nation, rather than a corrupt government. Lacking such a tool, Zine al-Abedine Ben Ali crumbled in the face of popular resistance, and Hosni Mubarak may soon be faced with a similar situation. It’s obvious a sizable portion of the Egyptian populace wants him to go. It remains to be seen if he’s past the point where he can convince them he can’t be gotten rid of.

Click here for the full article.