In Egypt we are living in exciting times. The revolution has triggered a political
upheaval and a mind-shift that will have repercussions throughout the region and
transform the lives of many in the Middle East. The euphoria currently enveloping
this country is a heady mix of political revolution and emotional liberation. Egyptians
are saying that their country has been ‘reborn’. Citizens are proclaiming
themselves proud to be Egyptian, confident in their ability to decide their own future
and ready to make a fresh start. The tinder that stoked the conflagration was
hunger and industrial unrest but the spark was the brutality of government
‘security’ forces.
Many are crediting the Internet with Egypt’s January 25th revolution but hold it!
Technology does not create revolutions, people do. In both Tunisia and Egypt’s
case, the social media were used to mobilize popular feeling and coordinate
informal opposition to organized and brutal police-state regimes. The galvanizing
emotion was a sense of injustice coupled with a readiness to challenge oppressive
and unscrupulous governments.
Young Egyptians have long spurned government media which they saw as trading
in lies and deception. For them, the Web was a safety-valve and allowed them a
right of assembly denied them by their country’s ‘State of Emergency’. Civil society
has not developed in many countries because dialogue within the state was never
permitted and institutions have never been allowed or encouraged. A government
that stifles free expression and outlaws political parties must expect criticism to
come from a source beyond its control. Throughout Egypt many dispossessed and
aggrieved workers took to the streets while a marginalized but eloquent minority
took to Cyber space where there were no limits to what they could say or who they
could say it to. Both groups shared similar aspirations and grievances. Their
methods were different but complementary.
What impact are the current revolutions going to have on the minds and feelings of
young people and what priorities will emerge from these upheavals when the dust
finally settles? Given that more than 50% of the people in the Arab world are
under 30 years old and that unemployment among the youth, many of whom are
educated, is on average 20% or more, is it any wonder that the young started a
revolution?
Are these sudden eruptions of ‘people power’ evidence of a generational conflict?
Have young people given up on the older generation? Have governments and
social institutions failed to keep abreast of the ideological and technological
changes occurring around them?
Seen from my own (older) generational viewpoint, I see cause for great optimism.
We can learn valuable lessons from recent events. The Internet and social media
were not mere catalysts of socio-political change; they set a new benchmark
regarding the processes of governance and could even furnish an object lesson of
how political life should be conducted. A close look at the virtual world of the Net
might help governments understand how to behave in the real world. As of now,
governments appear to be out of step with reality and hopeless at communicating
with their people.
Modern youth realize the power of words and are familiar with notions of branding
and marketing where words and slogans are the principal coinage. The poverty of
Egypt’s old regime was amply illustrated in its rhetoric. It didn’t stand a chance
against such adept and fluent activists. The placards on Cairo’s Liberation Square
and the chants of the demonstrators were pithy, hard hitting and, on occasions,
downright hilarious. The electronic media are a perfect environment for creative
writing and for inventing alternative forms of discourse. The sound-byte came of
age among a generation that supposedly did not read or express itself but in this
instance demolished with devastating effectiveness the hypocrisy of a corrupt
government.
A group’s ability to influence the popular imagination is relative to the vision it is
capable of projecting. The ousted government was a group of power hungry
politicians without a ‘vision’, dealing in political clichés and treating its citizens as
mere ciphers. By contrast, the bloggers – our present day essayists and diarists -
had a large and dynamic vision of their own nation and described a more humane
and dignified role for its citizens. They saw politics from an ‘accommodationist’ and
pluralistic perspective. While the protestors were ready to discuss the injustices of
the system and explore new concepts of citizenship that would meet the aspirations
of a librated Egypt, the regime was inflexible, prescriptive and doctrinaire.
The Web is a global competitive arena. Egypt has not been a truly competitive
business environment for decades. Businessmen were a tight clique who
prospered because they were close to the regime or its inner circle. They behaved
as if the country was their fiefdom. Conventional business and political
environments are characterized by hierarchy, financial clout and ‘influence’. Such
forces lose their purchase in a Cyber world where the ability to persuade relies on
‘soft’ powers such as reason, humour, inventiveness and a complete lack of
coercion.
Cyber folk have a global perspective. Politicians and businessmen are often
captives of their own parochial attitudes and geographical locations, obsessed with
maintaining their predominance and control over the local economy. Young folk
seek to escape the suffocating parochialism of their own country or background.
They reject censorship and question social controls. They are familiar with global
marketing and have the verve and confidence to compete on the international
stage.
Compare the style and substance of government organizations with those of
companies on the Internet. The Web businesses with the greatest chance of
survival are those ready to reinvent themselves and stay abreast of customers’
expectations and needs. A sense of accountability and responsibility is manifest in
their readiness to meet customers’ expectations. Change and development are
integral to their structure. Autocratic governments, by comparison, are concerned
primarily with staying in power. The government dictates and then imposes its
version of events on the people. Elections are a charade meant to create the
illusion that the people have been consulted but everyone knows that the election
is an act of grand larceny. The people’s sense of powerlessness is somewhat
mitigated by knowing that they are not colluding in the charade and that their
integrity has not been compromised.
Many governments do not respect the intelligence of their citizens especially when
they issue information that is unverifiable or is tantamount to propaganda. The
entrepreneur on the Web has a more respectful attitude towards his clients. He
aims to establish customer loyalty through good communication with his clients.
Web designers use intelligent persuasion and attempt to attract and hold the
interest of web-browsers by devising messages that are credible, inventive, and
creative in style and content. They invite criticism, comment and evaluation of their
products. When did the government ever approach its citizens with such respect or
think of inviting reaction from its citizens?
Observe too, the low-key approach used by Egypt’s young revolutionaries to
mobilize support. There never was a party agenda or identifiable leaders. The Web
was their ‘Speakers Corner’. Participation and involvement were encouraged. The
focus was on the causes of discontent. These young people chose an individual
whose death symbolized the brutality and ruthlessness of the regime. A young
graduate in the port city of Alexandria, Khaled Saeed, a man in his early 20s, was
tortured and then murdered in a police station. His fault was to expose police
corruption. Khaled became the icon of liberation to all Egyptians - “We are all
Khaled Saeed” - declaimed the Facebook site. This powerful message of
identification with a courageous protestor signalled a dramatic shift in the spirit of
Egyptian politics.
‘Education’ viewed as a tool of the state for its economic or political interests is
challenged by the open-ended possibilities posed by the digital media. Given the
appalling standard of state education in many countries it is hardly surprising that
young people satisfy their curiosity and need for information elsewhere. Many have
rejected the tedium of rote learning for the challenge and excitement of an
environment where they initiate exploration and problem solving without direction or
supervision from a ‘teacher’. An integral part of their intellectual awakening has
been the honing of their critical abilities which they have used in evaluating
government and society. This new generation has been able to escape the
confines of a national curriculum, rub shoulders with students from many lands and
acquire a value system that transcends the confines of their nation or ethnic group.
Many governments presume the right to be didactic and prescriptive. They use
coercion to get their message across. By contrast, the Web has its own etiquette
and rules which are the product of a world-wide consensus and are observed
voluntarily. The debate as to what is acceptable or tasteless is on-going. Contrast
this attitude with the arrogance and authoritarianism of officialdom which presumes
to know ‘what is best’. The radical disconnect between these two worlds is not
surprising. These Netizens make and apply their own rules. Their system is
dynamic and adaptable and no respecter of persons. The Web empowers the
individual and encourages respect for the opinions of others. This Cyber world
provided an environment for Egypt’s young revolutionaries to promote qualities of
tolerance and understanding which they then applied to the real world of their own
country where oppression and coercion were the order of the day. What can we
learn from their leap of faith?
‘Oh, brave new world!’ Are we ready for it?
|
|
