Tunisia rejects Tunisian Government.

Tunisia has recently had a revolution if you didn't notice. Dictator President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali has skipped town and a Unity government has been trying to form in the mean time. Problem is, as some are saying, the dictator has gone but not the dictatorship. President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali left but many of the top figures in the ministries are left behind and nobody likes them either. Protests in the streets continued for several days while the Unity government formed wanting all remains of the former rule ousted. The government formed but just today several key figures from protesting groups in the government quit because former ministers remained in their jobs.

Well I guess we'll see what happens. I'm surprised that most western governments are being very quiet about it when they usually yap all day about bringing democracy to country x.

NBC (? I'm pretty sure it was them) was calling it the first Wikileaks revolution.

Why a Wikileaks revolution?

And it was about time, Tunisia had been a brutal (if functional) tyranny for who knows how long, but they have started screwing up really seriously. When the price of bread, milk, eggs, goes 4x in two years, expect... anger.

Vive la révolution.

Why a Wikileaks revolution?

Whether it's cash, services, land, property, or yes, even your yacht, President [Zine el Abidine] Ben Ali's family is rumored to covet it and reportedly gets what it wants

Eh, bollocks to wikileaks.It can't be the first load of hay to weigh the people down becasue the problems had been evident for some time, it also can't be the final straw that broke the camel's back because that was the bloke who set himself on fire in protest. I attribute more to Facebook and twitter, two things which help create "Flash Mobs".

None of the social networks or the Wikileaks can claim this revolution. Ben Ali, though brutal, was once brilliant enough to placate the people with a good economy. When the economy started screwing up, he should have eased up on the repression. Still, the man had to slip sometime. And after 23 years, he had his run. Now its time to see what the future holds for Tunisia because so far there has only been the founder of the modern Tunisian state and Ben Ali.

I wonder if Algeria will go the same way in a sort of wider-spread Maghrebi revolution.

Wikileaks realistically cannot claim any involvement or credit for this. Why? Because in the court of world opinion they basically booted themselves into the "what the fuck are you trying to pull?" corner and as such cannot be seen positively.

Secondly, this issue seems to have been a long time coming and all Wikileaks did was play Captain Obvious in the most stupid way.

Some news agencies (and Colonel Gaddafi) said that, not Wikileaks. And the topic is Tunisia, not Wikileaks.

wider-spread Maghrebi revolution

Dude, fuck that. Our monarchy is Tropico levels of awful, but I am deeply afraid of what could happen after a revolution in Morocco... Plus, the Moroccan government didn't screw up nearly as badly: things are still going fine (and by fine I mean it sucks to be poor, but you normally won't actually starve).

Yeah... pretty sure this had absolutely nothing to do with Wikileaks. See the 'Dictator' qualifier in the OP's post. Edit: Oh look, I'm late to the party.

Originally, there were going to be elections 'within the next 60 days', and then opposition leaders protested that move because it wouldn't give them time to campaign (Ben Ali didn't allow many of them to build popular support, you see), so now the elections will be 'in six months'. Of course, now people are upset about that, but it's a necessary delay if they're going to have an at least somewhat legitimate democratically-elected government, IMO.

However, this might be bad for American and/or European interests in the region (I say this as an American citizen interested in Foreign Policy). The thing about Democracy is, whoever the people choose are the ones who come into power. What if they elect Islamofascists or Communists and the like? Will we just decry them as illegitimate then, or will we be forced to acknowledge them even as they openly work against our interests?

This is primarily why we've given Egypt's Mubarak a pass, even though he's a dictator in all but name. He's the lesser of two evils, from the perspective of current American Foreign Policy analysts. He's even lorded this fact over our heads at some points. "Hey guys, yeah you could get rid of me and have democratic elections, but what'll you do when they elect the Muslim Brotherhood? And they will elect the Muslim Brotherhood." (Disclaimer: Not his exact words.)

Analysts looking at this right now are concerned not only about what's happening there, but about the copycat chain-reaction it's predictably having throughout the region. Mass protests in a powder-keg of a country were sparked by a disgruntled, unemployed college student setting himself on fire? Voila! You have a man in Egypt committing suicide by fire as protest. And to be honest, it would probably be really, really bad for American efforts and objectives in the region if regimes started falling left and right like (and I loathe to use the metaphor) dominoes.

To conclude, I really hope Tunisia comes out of this moving toward what might be referred to as 'Liberal Democracy'. Not like we can really tell at this point, though, and no possibility in particular looks more likely than any other to me right now.

edited 18th Jan '11 2:32:47 PM by darksidevoid

2011, the Springtime of the People.

What if they elect Islamofascists or Communists and the like? Will we just decry them as illegitimate then, or will we be forced to acknowledge them even as they openly work against our interests?

Unless the USA want to further sink their reputation into the cesspit of hatred and lies political depravity that was nurtured with their notable hypocrisy in regards to "spreading democracy", it would be commendable that they accept the results of the popular elections. It's not like they can't finance and back their favourite candidates under the table, like they did in Greece back in the day via CIA.

Islamofascists? Communists? A buzzword and an extinct movement? Don't make me laugh. As if they could be a threat. As if the USA had any problems with the realms of the Gulf, which are more "islamofascist" than any country they tackled or threatened during their "war on terror" (yes, Iran is far more liberal than Saudi Arabia, and even a cursory check will reveal that).

There is only one section of people who truly fear the "islamofascist"'s rise: the intellectuals and wealthy middle classes, who mostly care for liberty, especially of the intellectual sort. Average Joe, however, doesn't care much about that. Average Jhonny Tunisian wants bread on his table.

And you've got to learn to accept people going against your direct near-sighted interests every once in a while. People will do what you want, provided you let them do what they want. Don't constantly use the big stick against your servants, lest they do their best to sabotage you, and then everyone loses.

To conclude, I really hope Tunisia comes out of this moving toward what might be referred to as 'Liberal Democracy'. Not like we can really tell at this point, though, and no possibility in particular looks more likely than any other to me right now.

Liberal democracy isn't the only sort of democracy, and any form of government is legitimate as long as it is with the consent of the governed.

edited 18th Jan '11 2:52:15 PM by RawPower

@Raw Power

I don't actually agree with the view that we ought to be "spreading democracy", assassinating foreign leaders, or rigging elections, especially not in the way advocated by the Bush Doctrine. I'm just trying to provoke a conversation (and I'd say I've succeeded, at least in the provocation :P) by pointing out why it's a stupid idea for people to just say 'yay, revolution' at this point. What comes next for Tunisia could, in all probability, be worse than what came before. They could fall back into a dictatorship or an oligarchy, etc., etc.

You bring up a good point, directly or indirectly, about some (note the some) Islamic political parties. Obviously, it's not like all of what they're doing is bad for the populace of their respective countries. On one hand, they often help the poor and destitute. On the other, some of them would like to enforce morality based on their religion. To be sure, 'Islamofascism' is an invented word, but that doesn't mean it's not semi-valid when applied to very particular groups, who are in fact political parties.

By the way, did I ever say Liberal Democracy was the only form of Democracy? No, despite the fact that I like Liberal Democracy, obviously there are other forms and I'm not saying it would be bad for Tunisia if they took on some other form of it, just that all this turmoil might suck for American and European interests, interests that American foreign policy people are supposed to be serving. Personally, I'll be happy for them if they're able to create a government that looks after their well-being and isn't autocratic or controlled by a wealthy few.

Additional notes: "Spreading Democracy" and the "War on Terror" were and still are bullshit, I agree.

Edit: P.S.: Also, no need to tell me about Iran, etc. I already know, and I have no delusions that the Middle East and surrounding countries are some kind of monolithic block, or anything like that. My personal views do not at all align with conventional foreign policy wisdom.

edited 18th Jan '11 4:29:35 PM by darksidevoid

Good for you then. I'm sorry, but I tend to get Cross-Popping Veins when Westerners talk like they know what's best for us. The worst part is, their ignorance combined with either uncaring self-interest or uninformed (i.e. uncaring) selflessness can have disastrous consequences. You find a tribe lost somewhere living in the neolithic, and their society is structured around building axes of stone. The elders own the axes, lend them to the young, etc. etc. What do you do? You sell them stainless steel ultra-cheap axes. Their entire society falls apart like a domino, and next thing you know they're letting the not-tech-savvy elders starve, and prostituting their girls to foreigners for money to buy axes.

Obviously Islamic societies have been among the most civilized in the planet for a millenium and a half, but my point is that butting in into foreign business can be very harmful for everyone.

I suppose it makes me callous to say that it's just too bad that American self interest doesn't always match yours and America can't really be expected to care, huh? Unless it benefits America, that is.

I honestly don't know who benefits from this situation, but if it came to be my interests versus yours I pick me.

edited 18th Jan '11 4:45:30 PM by Arha

Yes, but how about your interests right now as opposed to your interests for decades to come. Maybe treating me fairly and not ripping me off will mean you'll have a friend in me when the chips are down. Given that this is not a zero-sum game, you helping me does not necessarily mean you losing in the bargain, and in fact we can both win much more than you would ever win by being a short-sighted jackass.

Liberal democracy isn't the only sort of democracy, and any form of government is legitimate as long as it is with the consent of the governed.

I can't agree with that. A government that fails to ensure basic human rights for its citizens can never be legitimate.

basic human rights

Like the right for a job, or the right for "decent" housing, or perhaps the right to life?

DEFINE

No, my self interest doesn't have to screw you over, but if it's better for me to do so, well, sucks to be you.

Like the right for a job, or the right for "decent" housing, or perhaps the right to life? DEFINE

Freedom of speech, the press, and religion, for one thing. And the right to vote regardless of race and gender. Probably several other things.

edited 18th Jan '11 4:56:28 PM by silver2195

@Raw Power: No need for you to apologize, especially since the failure to communicate is all mine. I definitely fumbled the delivery, but I was hoping to start a conversation about the pros and cons of democracy itself, since it's always a good thing to reexamine one's convictions from time to time.

And yeah, that's a good allegory to explain the effects that Western policies can/have had on most of the rest of the world (is that even a proper use of the word allegory? Eh, whatever). If only more of my countrymen had half an idea about what the rest of the world was actually like. Or, in the case of Neoconservatives, if only they weren't assholes.

Edit: Ooooo, I guess we've already kinda-sorta started talking about legitimacy. As good a place as any to start. :D

edited 18th Jan '11 5:00:56 PM by darksidevoid

What if the governed vote against those? What if, like Ankh Morpork, they vote against democracy? (Note: in most Islamic countries, this is not likely to happen: most peoples WANT democracy).

edited 18th Jan '11 5:00:21 PM by RawPower

People don't vote against democracy; they vote for leaders who take away democracy.

Doesn't it amount to the same thing?