The Tunisia Scenario

Daniel Larison writes:

It would be interesting and healthy if the first successful Arab revolution in over a generation happened, and democratists and their preferred policies had nothing to do with any of it. As Tunisian riots continue and possibly threaten the survival of Ben Ali’s regime, Marc Lynch asks where all the democracy promoters have gone:

"Barely a month goes by without a Washington Post editorial bemoaning Egypt’s authoritarian retrenchment and criticizing the Obama administration’s alleged failure to promote Arab democracy. But now Tunisia has erupted as the story of the year for Arab reformers. The spiraling protests and the regime’s heavy-handed, but thus far ineffective, repression have captured the imagination of Arab publics, governments, and political analysts. Despite Tunis’s efforts to censor media coverage, images and video have made it out onto social media and up to Al Jazeera and other satellite TV. The “Tunisia scenario” is now the term of art for activist hopes and government fears of political instability and mass protests from Jordan to Egypt to the Gulf."

But the Post’s op-ed page has been strikingly silent about the Tunisian protests. Thus far, a month into the massive demonstrations rocking Tunisia, the Washington Post editorial page has published exactly zero editorials about Tunisia. For that matter, the Weekly Standard, another magazine which frequently claims the mantle of Arab democracy and attacks Obama for failing on it, has thus far published exactly zero articles about Tunisia (though, to his credit, frequent Standard contributor and ex-Bush administration official Elliott Abrams has weighed in on it at his new CFR blog). Why are the most prominent media voices on Arab democracy so entirely absent on the Arab reform story of the year?"

The easy answer, but possibly also the right one, is that they have nothing to say about it because it is something much more like a genuine, indigenous popular movement that is not working to advance “pro-Western” or “pro-American” policy goals, and it is therefore irrelevant or even unwelcome in their view. Most of the “color” revolutions were directed against governments that were seen as hostile to U.S. and allied interests or at least too closely aligned with Russia and (in Lebanon’s case) Syria, and the “color” revolutionaries were always identified as “pro-Western” reformers regardless of the accuracy of this description, and so advocates of “democracy” responding accordingly with enthusiastic support for the protesters. When a pro-Western secular autocrat faces a popular uprising that is almost certainly not being encouraged and backed from outside, these advocates of “democracy” have nothing to say because democratic reform was simply a means for advancing regime changes in several countries that the advocates wanted to bring into a Western orbit. Ben Ali’s downfall represents quite the opposite. If Lynch looked back at the reactions from most democracy-promoting outlets after the elections of Morales or of Chavez, which came at the expense of pro-American oligarchies, he would likely find a similar silence and indifference to the empowerment of those countries’ poor majorities.

Lynch effectively answers his own question later in the post:

"If U.S. advocates of Arab democracy don’t step up to draw attention to Tunisia’s protests, it will only reinforce the skeptical view that their advocacy of Arab democracy is mainly about putting pressure on Hosni Mubarak or scoring points against the Obama administration."

For the most part, democratist advocacy is this selective, cynical, and unprincipled, or rather it is guided by another set of priorities in which promoting democratic political reform in its own right does not figure as very important.

And:

"If the Obama administration decides to tacitly or overtly side with the protesters and Ben Ali’s regime falls, will these Washington voices for Arab democracy applaud the change or will they attack Obama for selling out a secular ally?" ~Marc Lynch

Lynch says this is a genuine question, but he must know the answer to this. It is a perfect “heads I win, tails you lose” situation for administration critics. If the administration remains publicly neutral and calls for an end to violence, they will attack Obama for his passivity and silence, as they did during his correct handling of the aftermath of the Iranian presidential election. If the administration openly sides with Ben Ali’s opponents and calls for his resignation, administration critics will condemn Obama for undermining U.S. allies, destabilizing North Africa, and creating an opening for the Islamists that Ben Ali has effectively suppressed. If the administration defends the Tunisian government and tries to calm the situation down behind the scenes, the critics will berate Obama for his indifference to the suffering of the people and his lack of belief in American principles, and so on.

Since Obama will probably get no credit from his democratist critics no matter what he does, he and his administration should continue their public neutrality, use what influence they and the French have with Ben Ali to urge him to continue de-escalating the conflict, and insist publicly that any transition of power should be done in an orderly and peaceful fashion. Emphasize that the U.S. and France will not recognize any government that comes to power through the violent overthrow of the regime. The administration could build on Ben Ali’s offer not to stand for re-election to propose that the transition take place after the next election. In that way, the administration might be able to contribute to easing Ben Ali out of power that stands a chance of avoiding chaos, immediate revolution or a military coup.