I was interviewed today by Bryan Farrell of Waging Nonviolence on the meaning and significance of the events in Egypt.
Bryan Farrell: What first came into your mind when you saw the announcement that Mubarak had stepped down?
Cynthia Boaz: I was not surprised (but very pleased!). It was very clear from the first day that the movement in Egypt had been planned carefully and had been effective in conveying the need for both sustained pressure on the regime and strict nonviolent discipline. Despite media portrayals to the contrary, the uprising in Egypt was not spontaneous and by and large, the movement was better at strategy, discipline, adaptation, and reading the opponent than the regime. The most telling moment was how, after the first big round of repression, the resistance got even more galvanized and determined.
BF: What does this movement mean for the future of nonviolent action around the world?
CB: Well, it's obviously very inspiring and I think many folks in places such as Iran, Burma, Belarus, Tibet and elsewhere are feeling emboldened by the successes of the people of Egypt. But perhaps even more significantly, the victory of mass nonviolent action in Egypt has implications for terrorist organizations around the world. As nonviolent methods succeed, they de-legitimize violence as a method of pushing grievances and creating change. Nonviolent action offers a realistic alternative (and powerful) form of struggle. So today's victory has the potential to seriously damage the recruitment campaigns of terrorist organizations. And in that sense, the people of Egypt have done all of us great favor. By demonstrating that mass nonviolent action by the people can be more effective than violent insurrection, they have probably made the world a little safer for all of us.
BF: What do you think is the biggest challenge now facing the people of Egypt?
CB: My first inclination is to say that the biggest challenge facing the people of Egypt at this moment is the cynicism of observers and commentators who do not understand the core dynamic of nonviolent action, and thus attribute this victory to "backroom deals", "external forces", or the looming presence of the military in the background. But the loyalty demonstrated by the military to the people's revolution has everything to do with how well the movement did its job. Based on what has transpired so far, it is pretty clear that the movement won over the security forces in a genuine show of people power and strategy. That process was both longer and deeper than we have been able to see on the surface. This was as well planned as it could have been. I do not expect the military to defect now. And I think it is unfortunate that so many commentators are already speculating that what we're seeing in Egypt is actually a military coup. That perspective reflects adherence to outdated assumptions and frames about concepts such as violence and power. Fortunately the people of Egypt know better.
BF: What do you think, above all, made this victory possible?
CB: Planning, planning and more planning. The movement was able to keep the people of Egypt unified and, for the most part, nonviolently disciplined, even during the height of repression. That would not have been possible but for a couple of years worth of laying the groundwork behind the scenes. The other great advantage that the Egyptian people had over the regime is their spiritual resilence, or what Gandhi called "satyagraha" (holding to truth). That spirit was infectious and empowering, and it is what finally shifted the balance to the people by lowering fear enough to make the threat of violence ineffective.
BF: Or, of course, anything else that comes to mind.
CB: I want to comment on the meme that the uprising in Egypt wasn't truly nonviolent because there were some clashes between protesters & police, some acts of vandalism, rock throwing and other isolated incidents of rage.
It is true that there was an undisciplined element in the uprising, but that is always inevitable as these things grow, because not everyone has been trained in nonviolent strategy.
But the movement itself was nonviolent and they've been preparing for this confrontation for a long time. They understand the necessity of strict nonviolent discipline.Just as there was a radical flank in South Africa, in the US Civil Rights movement, in the Chilean resistance to Pinochet, and in many other nonviolent uprisings, there may have been a more radical flank here. So it was the job of the movement to a) distinguish themselves from that contingent, b) make it clear that no violence will be tolerated as part of the struggle, and c) train and discipline new activists on the ground as they join. They succeeded on all counts.
It is important to see that the Egyptian regime was doing everything it could to provoke violence (or at the least, the perception of it) by the movement. They wanted to create the notion that what the movement was doing was not nonviolent and therefore not legitimate. It was very important that the activists minimized their vulnerability to such agent provocateurs, which they did extraordinarily well, especially considering the size of this movement. It is also important now that we (as observers) do not inadvertently serve the interests of dictators like Mubarak or of other similar regimes, who seek to take volition and credit away from brave nonviolent activists. This was their victory and they earned it.
Follow Cynthia Boaz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cynthiaboaz
They burnt down the NDP Hq, and in Suez they burnt down a police station. When Mubarak, unleashed the criminals on the neighborhoods, they form vigilante groups and patrolled the neighborhoods with whatever weapons they could find, including guns.
They fought pitch battles with Mubarak's thugs for two nights to maintain Tahrir. This was not some radical flank. This was the core group that stayed in Tahrir 24/7. They didn't lie down non-violently and wait to be beaten to a pulp, they used rocks, knives, clubs and fire bombs. Had they lost control of Tahrir at that time it would have been a grave set back for the revolution.
see also http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5053/5417834434_ceedb2dd13_z.jpg
Although the people carrying out this revolution have peacefully protested it's true, they have also militantly applied their right to organized collective armed self defense.
If that is how you define non-violent, then we have unity.
Clay Claiborne
see my blog on events in North Africa starting Jan. 14 at the DailyKos.
http://clay-claiborne.dailykos.com/blog/Clay%20Claiborne/
I don't define nonviolence as organized collective armed self-defense. Absolutely not.
The means of the movement were nonviolent. Not all 81 million Egyptians were trained in nonviolent strategy and not all could be kept under the control of the movement. It's unfortunate, but it does not diminish from the fact that this was an overwhelming victory for nonviolent action over violent action.
Don't forget your friends Jordan, Algeria or even Saudi Arabia. I look forward to reading your expose on Saudi atrocities. But then again, we never read anything on Egypt, we were always told what a model it was. Just as we are always sold on what a model Shah's Iran was, but never had explanation how he got removed by a revolution. Thanks.
My expertise is in the dynamics of strategic nonviolent action, and that is what I discuss in the interview. I am not a writer of human rights abuse exposes, although I have no qualms about publicly taking issue with the regime in Saudi Arabia.
If a nonviolent movement manifests in Saudi Arabia or Jordan or coalesces in Algeria, I'll be writing about it.
And I don't appreciate that you assume I don't consider 1979 in Iran to be a people power revolution. Do you think I'm somehow responsible for the stereotypes about Iran (or the other countries you name) in American media? That's just weird.
How many erroneous ideas can you attribute to me in one post?
"I have no qualms about publicly taking issue with the regime in Saudi Arabia. " Then do it. Moreover, have you ever??
"nonsensical?"
There is a nonviolent movement in Jordan right now! Why don't you write about it?
There is a non violent movement in Algeria right now! Why don't you write about it?
There is a non violent movement in Palestinian Territories against Abbas and Fattah for assisting Israel in its targetted killing of Palestinians as exposed by Al-jazeera, right now! Why don't you write about it?
But no, we must extend everything to Iran and "our" fantacy of overthrowing that regime.
The fact is that Egypt and Tunisia, and the domino effect we are watching has nothing to do with nonviolence. The big story is about the fact that these uprisings are symptoms of a larger problem. They are warning signs to us that all is not well in the American Empire. They are sounds of a collapsing old order, and unfortunately for us all, it is the order much of this nation's policies are founded on. These are the symptoms of an Empire that its deficit is equal and soon to surpass the size of its entire GDP (unheard of in human history). While you and other journalists may be missing these signs, they are not ignored by global investors who see our Client States collapsing. I worry more about our near future than "nonsensical nonviolence" irrelevant to us all.
Will we ever learn and abandon these policies?? 50 years ago it was the red scare, now we have the fundamentalist scare to justify these policies that are detrimental to our own long term interests. Our deficit is a reflection of these policies which have led to wars and excessive military spending.
Thus, Cynthia, it is no surprise that in your article you can’t bring yourself to mention whose interests have been set back, if only temporarily, by the Egyptian revolt: those of the Obama administration and its corporate funders. The Egyptian protesters have forced the Obama administration to withdraw its firm support for Mubarak.
What do you mean by “terrorist organization”? In my book, a "terrorist organization" is an organized group that employs violence or the credible threat of violence for political ends. By this definition, the U.S. government is indeed one of the chief “terrorist organizations” in the world today. An interesting question arises: Will the Egyptian revolt de-legitimize the violence of the Obama administration? Unfortunately, it’s a question you studiously avoid.
I was referring to terrorist organizations that have their roots in several unstable or oppressive societies of the Middle East, which I thought was pretty clearly implied. But in truth, the principle applies more generally. And yes, as nonviolent action continues to produce successes, it will de-legitimize violence of all stripes, by terrorist organizations, governments, and even individuals.
It is not obvious that if we repeat the dangers of the Bush43/ Cheeney years, most of us will understand what is happening, any more than most Americans did in the 2000's. Media in America can easily be controlled. And it is not clear that potential leaders of American political activism will, now or in the future, have the freedom to communicate and organize the demonstrations that will be necessary in order to be heard.
On the other hand, there were many examples of successful mass nonviolent action against tyranny in the days before social media (India, Poland, South Africa, Chile, Philippines, to name a few), and the reason these movements succeeded was largely because they were able to own the narrative. It took longer than it does in the era of instantaneous communication, but it is a very Gandhian notion to say that truth resonates more deeply than propaganda. And in that sense, I think that while social media won't save everyone from repression, the co-option of it by oppressors does not pre-empt victories of people power, either. The medium is a tool and it is as good as the strategy and message of those who use it.