In 1981, my brother, John Zogby, ran for Mayor of Utica, New York. Like other factory towns across New England, the Mid-Atlantic and Mid-Western states, Utica was in decline. The factories that had employed tens of thousands had closed and gone south. With the loss of these jobs, the city was in the beginning of a steep decline.
In 1950, Utica had a population of 100,000. By 1980, it had dropped to 80,000 (today Utica hovers around 60,000). Loss of employment meant that neighborhoods were in decline, families were breaking up under the pressures of unemployment, and urban blight had set in, with once family-friendly neighborhoods now in decay.
Despite this troubling state of affairs, politics in the city had not changed. Machine politicians that had once fed off prosperity, now scrambled to feed off the spoils of a dying community.
John had a plan to revitalize this downsized city. He had written a creative study entitled "Utica 2000 ", projecting an economic plan that could lead Utica into the next century. His work captured the imagination of many intellectuals, civic organizations, and progressives across the city, spurring his bid to run for mayor. John's candidacy won the endorsement of Utica's television station and its newspaper. He had a cohort of professors at the city's college in his braintrust, but Utica's Democratic Party machine was threatened by this upstart campaign, and mobilized against this upstart movement. In that year's Democratic primary contest, John lost decisively.
I remember a conversation between John and former Senator James Abourezk, shortly after the election, in which John explained to the Senator how the machine had defeated him. He related how they had hired drivers to take people to the polls, provided them with marked sample ballots indicating their endorsed candidates, and, when needed, how they had used "walking around money" to sway voters to their camp.
Abourezk's take on the election was quite direct. "So what you're telling me", he said, "was that you were out-organized". It was not what we wanted to hear, but it was the truth, plain and simple.
In its purest form, politics in a democracy is about the contest for power. The best ideas don't always win, nor do the most deserving candidates or causes. It is the side that organizes the best and mobilizes its voters most effectively that carries the day and takes power.
This is a lesson we learned in 1981, and it is lesson that is being learned in the Arab Spring states of Tunisia and Egypt where elections will soon decide which side initially takes power and reaps the benefits of the popular mobilizations that led to the downfall of the regimes that governed for decades.
The uprisings in both countries have been called "Facebook Revolutions", but they will not have "Facebook Elections." Social media was but a communication vehicle that enabled young revolutionaries to break the regime's monopoly on information, to communicate with each other, and to mobilize demonstrations. They were able to brilliantly use these tools not only to organize in the streets, but to send powerful images to the outside world revealing their government's abusive and brutal use of power and to generate support for their valiant efforts to make change.
What remains to be seen is whether these same young revolutionaries, using these same tools, can organize voters and win elections, or will the older more established organizations with broad based support ultimately triumph?
An early indication of the limits of social media as an organizing tool came with the national referendum on "Constitutional Reform" held in Egypt in March of this year.
In that contest the sides were clearly demarcated. The young revolutionaries and many progressive reformers opposed the reforms being proposed by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces that had retained power after the departure of President Mubarak. The Muslim Brotherhood and other older established parties supported the military's proposal, since they saw the process outlined in that reform favoring their chances to win the next election putting them in the driver's seat to write the new constitution and consolidate their power.
A survey of social media posts in the period immediately preceding the vote, saw the revolutionaries clearly winning the Facebook war by a wide margin of tens of thousands opposed to the proposed reforms to a mere few thousands in favor. Friends associated with the progressive parties, with whom I spoke in the lead up to the vote, were confident of victory. In addition to being buoyed by the public support of the best known presidential candidates, former Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa and Mohamed el Baradei, they had been talking to each other and checking Facebook and were convinced they had majority support. The final tally showed how wrong they had been. The reforms won by a sweeping margin of 77 percent in favor to a mere 23 percent opposed. The revolutionaries had been out-organized.
Further evidence of the effectiveness of the Muslim Brotherhood's organizing ability came with their recent victories winning elections and consolidating their hold over Egypt's doctors' and teachers' syndicates.
With elections in Tunisia happening this week, and with Egypt's just around the corner, we need to be prepared to accept an outcome that may be disappointing to some, but should not be surprising to anyone. The new parties being formed by those who led the revolts have not yet jelled, nor are their roots deep enough or broad based enough to compete effectively.
But the final chapters of both revolutions will not be written by the outcomes of their first post-Arab Spring elections. If the young revolutionaries stay the course, build organizations strong enough to compete, and retain their commitment to freedom and democratic rights, they can be a permanent fixture on the political scene. Their time will come.
This was the view expressed by Ahmad Maher, one of the founders of Egypt's April 6th Movement, which played a central role in the Tahrir Square revolt. On my weekly Abu Dhabi TV program, Viewpoint, Maher discussed a long term plan of direct engagement and organization. April 6, he said, had not finished its work of bringing real change and social justice to Egypt. Social media had been a useful tool for organizers to maintain communication, but what was needed now was "to find new ways to reach people" on the streets where they live. And this will take, he noted, several more years of hard work. Maher was confident, however, that whatever the outcome of the election, change has occurred. The next President and Parliament will not be able to operate as Presidents and Parliaments of the past. An empowered and organized public, Maher observed, will now serve as a check on power and a voice seeking social justice.
That, incidentally, was the story that played out on a smaller scale in Utica. John bounced back from defeat. Not only did he build a nationally recognized polling company, becoming a major employer in Utica, but he and his allies also set about to revitalize a citizen's lobby to continue to push for change in the city. Today, the old "political machine" is gone and many of the ideas that were advocated in "Utica 2000" have been implemented. Utica, once dying, has stabilized with new immigrants coming to the city bringing new vitality and energy, creating jobs and rebuilding old neighborhoods.
The lesson here is clear. Victory doesn't come easy and it doesn't go to the side with the best ideas, or even to the one that expresses its ideas best, the most frequently, or to the largest audience. Whether in a small city or a big country, change will only come through organization and ability to mobilize people to press for change.
Follow James Zogby on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AAIUSA
Right now, Mr. Zogby's piece reminds me that Barack Obama built the largest and most effective grass roots organization ever seen in the United States, to win in 2008. Upon taking office, he promptly disbanded that organization. I fear we will live to regret that still-inexplicable decision.
There is no indication that any of these countries will end up as FREE democracies where the rights of women and minorities will be afforded equal guarantees under law and the societies themselves will respect the those who are non muslims.
The recent massacres of Coptic Christians would be the primary example.
Don't tell me it can't be done - it's how Switzerland works. Not always ideal, but nobody can complain there that they don't have a voice, or a say in decision-making. It was also the concept of the "soviets" - "all power to the soviets", meaning the local councils of the party. I'm not sure what the new Icelandic constitution has come up with since their refusal to play the IMF's game (they've been blacked out in western media since....) but it's not likely to be more of the "same old same old" and may draw on the traditions of the ancient "althing" of medieval times, which was an annual assembly of all citizens and their hangers-on (often very unruly and mobbish, however).
Passing power upwards, usually by the complacency of the every-now-and-then ballot box, means that someone can claim to have been decided to have a mandate to "govern". No, that's the wrong approach; representative democracy means an abdication of real democracy, it means giving someone power who may not turn out to deserve it, and has (while "governing") all the power in the world to abuse. That's the problem in Canada - near-absolute power invoking a "mandate" from a population whose real electoral intent was "to get rid of the other guy", not to approve anybody's platform, nor to conceded that they want unpopular and suspect laws and deals shoved down their throats by overtly crooked and callous politicians.
Who has the mandate to govern? The people, that's the point. Asking them to come up with a system that gives up that mandate - that's treachery just watiing to happen.
----------------------
That is true of the social reality but not of the movement's rhetorical usage.
The problem we face is that we need radical change but are so divided that we seek, like you appear to advocate, compromise. With compromise, there can be no radicalism. That is a big problem as without radicalism there can be no change.
The way forward, once we acknowledge our post-ideological status, becomes leadership. But woops, Obama just demonstrated that a leader who activates radicals will be a moderate using radicals to gain an edge.
I think we are heading for increasing chaos, edginess and anger. We will lurch from one crisis to another. The OWS movement symbolizes (objectively & unintentionally) powerlessness, confusion and depression. The subjective positive feelings arising from it reflect the high level of illusion and delusion experienced by post-ideological activists..
We get ourselves into trouble when we insist on free, fair and open elections in a country and then, when such an election produces an undesired result to reject its outcome. Look at what happened in the Palestinian territories, for example. After decades of our and the Israelis' undermining of Fatah, it was Hamas that won the last election. Rather than accept the result and learn our lesson about meddling, we further isolated and fragmented the Palestinians, with the result that the impasse regarding establishment of a Palestinian state has continued. Hopefully we will not be surprised when the Islamist brotherhood earns its legitimate place in the governments of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, and will work with the elected governments just like we did with the dictatorships that preceded them.
What Egyptians and Americans are learning is that people don't need traditional organization to fight corruption or create political change. They don't need political parties or lavishly financed campaigns or PACs. With social media, they can now actually organize around shared ideas and desired outcomes as independent individuals who communicate directly with each other rather through a formal organizational mouthpiece.
It's turning out that sufficiently connected networks of individuals can skip the need for central organizations. After all, isn't true democracy based on the informed decisions of independent voters rather than the collective votes of organized machines?
i.e. Utica, once dying, has stabilized with new immigrants coming to the city bringing new vitality and energy, creating jobs and rebuilding old neighborhoods.