I was in Egypt for a few weeks almost immediately after this. April/May 2011.

Peaceful as all heck. Despite the burned out buildings

Were the causes reasonable? — jorndoe

Is that to be measured against what people might reasonably expect for themselves or some degree of freedom that they have no control over?

, well, there might be responses to either. Say, do you think they were reasonable persons in protesting those causes in their situation?

Are you referring to people arguing for some version of the status quo because of particular circumstances?

:D , I'm referring to the protesters.

It is reasonable for them to do so. I measure that against my desire to be a human being as I see fit.

At a glance, the causes are fair enough, though some resulting violence not so much. (History seems to indicate that societal change often is accompanied by strife and violence.) — jorndoe

The violence seems, in the majority of cases, to have originated with the rulership. The protests began peacefully - as they often do - and the oppressive regime reacts with force, whereupon the populace, which is already unhappy, frustrated and justifiably angry, responds in the most natural human way: they fight back. Of course, they haven't got a chance.

Were the causes reasonable? — jorndoe

More than reasonable. Decades overdue.

What might we expect in the future (if anything)? — jorndoe

More of the world will keep erupting into violence.

The United States and the Arab Spring: The Dynamics of Political Engineering

A worthwhile read.

The United States and the Arab Spring: The Dynamics of Political Engineering

A worthwhile read. — Tzeentch

FYI, author Gamal M Selim, published Summer 2013:

Conclusion

The short-lived US democracy-promotion agenda following 9/11 did not result in any meaningful democratization in the Arab world. As the United States abandoned this agenda and did not incur any major risks as a result, it seemed content with its policy of endorsing the Arab autocrats. That explains the fact that the United States was surprised by the outbreak of mass uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. The United States did not plan the Arab Spring as claimed by some analysts, as the local autocrats were doing everything possible to secure American and Israeli interests in the region.

Following the outbreak of the Arab Spring, the United States embarked upon a process of political engineering under which it was able to reverse a revolutionary trend which could have jeopardized American interests in the Arab world. Today, the revolutionaries who initiated the change did not assume the leading positions in dismantling the old authoritarian regimes and building new democratic ones. Ironically, elements of the old pro-American regimes assumed these tasks in Egypt and Yemen. For the first time, we have democratic projects designed and implemented by elements who were main actors in the old dictatorships. In the case of Libya, a complete reshuffling process took place where the revolutionary movements were marginalized and a new pro-American regime was installed, thus replacing the insubordinate, highly unpredictable regime of Qaddafi. In the case of Bahrain, the United States was able to suppress revolutionary changes through covert military intervention.

It is important to note, however, that these strategies did not resolve the main problems which produced the revolutionary discontent in the Arab world. Rather, they prolonged them and opened new horizons for further upheavals in the Arab world. Perhaps the most noticeable among these problems are (i) the continuity with the neo-liberal economic policies, which had created a tremendous gap between the rich and the poor unprecedented in recent Arab history, and (ii) the US full endorsement of Israeli policies in the region. These policies are bound to generate more anti-American resentment in the region and lead to more future surprises. In other words, the United States has not grasped yet the social and historical underpinnings of the Arab Spring. The United States may have won in the short-term; however, in the long-term, more violent developments are bound to occur.
— Gamal M Selim · Summer 2013

It's pretty simple. Democracy alone doesn't mean much. In 1932 Germany, the Nazis got a majority vote and then preceded to tear down the institutions of the Weimar government.

Egypt voted in the Muslim Brotherhood in the 2010s and so they were to become a sort of theocartic state. The army took it back under Sisi.

Democracies need guard rails like separation of powers, personal and civil rights, and rule of law. They are a network of interlocking, and often layered parts. It needs all levels of government to accept this legalistic-oriented entity. Just voting in people does not a democracy make.

Largely, it seems to me, religion has to be secularized to a major extent as to matter less than upholding personal freedoms. The US prospered because of its separation of church and state, despite conservative notions of "values". Values can inform your decisions, but values that favor a religion should not. Relatively speaking, most liberal democracies should come to the same spectrum of conclusions: No cruel and unusual punishment, respect one's personal beliefs- whatever they may be as long as they are not harming others, due process and rights of representation, people should be able to peacefully protest and write their thoughts, things like this. It might be vanilla and boring, but it's what it is. The excitement of some apocalyptic and mystical notions of a theocratic state should have no considerations in a liberal democracy. On the other side, the army is absolutely beholden to the civilian body-politic.

January 6th, 2021 in the US was a very minor version of what happens when peaceful protest turns violent. If a country has many January 6th like events, then you get room for the use of marshal law. On the other side, marshal law can be used for perceived enemy threats real or not. Thus, it is easy for a fragile liberal democracy to get permanent military control.

Basically it comes down to how people handle differences of opinion and grievances respectfully. That takes a culture that allows respectful differences of opinion.

Democracy alone doesn't mean much. — schopenhauer1

Especially if it's corrupted and systematically undermined.

During its first four years, Weimar was under constant attack—above all, from the Big Lie that the republic was a totally illegitimate government because it owed its genesis to a “stab in the back” delivered on the home front.

then weakened by a global economic depression and crushing debts from a previous war
and then coerced

..
The conservative parties did not manage to win enough votes. They pressured president Paul von Hindenburg to appoint Hitler chancellor. They hoped to form a majority cabinet with the NSDAP. The fact that they expected to use Hitler for their own agenda would turn out to be a fatal underestimation.

30 January 1933 was the day: Von Hindenburg gave in and appointed Hitler chancellor. ‘It is like a dream. The Wilhelmstraße is ours', Joseph Goebbels, the future Minister of Propaganda, wrote in his diary. So, although Hitler was not elected by the German people, he still came to power in a legal way.

Yep., seems to be an eerie playbook.

and a spookily familiar sequence of events

At the end of the day it's up to people to be vigilant about keeping democracies. America is a bit different, being it is one of the oldest and longest running ones.

Germany really never had a democracy prior to Weimar from its 1866 origins as a modern state. It had various military regimes run by Bismarck and the Kaiser.

The Arab states also never really had an internal democratic movement. Hell, one can argue even France had multiple cycles of democracy, mob rule, and dictators.

So by-and-large, democracies are hard to come by and maintain. It needs a sort of civic tradition that is instilled both top-down and ground-up.

The big factor in much of this is economic instability. Economic disparity creates resentment, and this gets harnessed by anti-democratic forces. You blame an external force perhaps, or you turn towards ultra-nationalism, or radical religious elements. Then you have larger players in the region like Iran, crate para-military groups within states.

Also in the mix, that cannot be denied in the Global South is the influence of Russia/the Soviet Union in creating socialist "liberation" movements that used ideas of liberation and hatred of the West and the Global North. All of it becomes one corrupt and authoritarian government after the other, some more religious, some more authoritarian. Of course you cannot deny that some people have control of resources, and some do not. Since the Global North was the first to exploit these resources, it becomes a target for the woes. Nationalism and religious radicalism dominate over liberalism, as liberalism seems the tool of the West. However, I would argue that this is a false notion that is often magnified from the religious radicals and the anti-Global North folks. Rather, if harnessed correctly, it could lead to booming development with less economic disparity. Radicalism is not the answer to injustices perceived in economic disparities. More well-rooted liberalism is proven to work pretty well, and provides the maximum personal freedoms, which some would say in a political sense, is the optimal and most just circumstance.

More well-rooted liberalism is proven to work pretty well, and provides the maximum personal freedoms, which some would say in a political sense, is the optimal and most just circumstance. — schopenhauer1

Sure. How does that take root in oppressed, economically and socially exploited populations?

Sure. How does that take root in oppressed, economically and socially exploited populations? — Vera Mont

By working with pro-democratic forces. See Japan, post WW2 for example on a society that went from feudal to militarist (ala Germany), to democratic. Indeed it did keep its isolation so that helps.

Turkey (prior to Erdogan era) can be another example of reform.

By working with pro-democratic forces. — schopenhauer1

Who is to do do this "working with"? And how would it possible without an economic upswing in that country?

The UN does not advocate for a specific model of government but promotes democratic governance as a set of values and principles that should be followed for greater participation, equality, security and human development. Democracy provides an environment that respects human rights and fundamental freedoms, and in which the freely expressed will of people is exercised. People have a say in decisions and can hold decision-makers to account. Women and men have equal rights and all people are free from discrimination. — The UN

No cruel and unusual punishment, respect one's personal beliefs- whatever they may be as long as they are not harming others, due process and rights of representation, people should be able to peacefully protest and write their thoughts, things like this — schopenhauer1

I guess there are any number of characteristics, transparency, freedom, ... And non-characteristics, authoritarianism, oppression, ... There's no magic bullet. Involves ethics.

Who is to do do this "working with"? — Vera Mont

It takes democrats (I don't mean the US party :grin:). A democracy where the people have become infatuated with a would-be dictator is less likely to stay (as) democratic. Demagogues can democratically undo democracy. Academic critique by itself might not do. It takes people standing up for those things.

It takes democrats — jorndoe

So, it must happen internally. But what if an outside, much bigger power - say the USA or some imperialist nation - interferes? Or actually invades? Or undermines the economy? How are the democratic factions in a small country supposed to defend it?

So, it must happen internally. But what if an outside, much bigger power - say the USA or some imperialist nation - interferes? Or actually invades? Or undermines the economy? How are the democratic factions in a small country supposed to defend it? — Vera Mont

These are all the tropes. I said in another thread:

There is a tendency (of anti-Westerners), to romanticize or glorify the "little guy" no matter what- to admire their way of causing small areas of chaos. But at the end of the day it is for an awful goal. Simply saying, "Well they are against imperialism!" is disregarding all things you are mentioning. Their actions lead to heightened pain and suffering, transforming them into a force resembling the very "Great Satan" they claim to fight against, especially when they fuel smaller paramilitary groups resisting integration into the global system.

Whether we're talking about Iran or their Sunni counterparts, it's imperative to view such ideologies as disastrous, and with contempt. Their actions, teetering on the edge of destruction without going over, aren't admirable or clever. This ideology, akin to a suicidal, apocalyptic death cult, needs to be cast aside from the collective mindset of an entire region, thrown into the dustbin of history.

While acknowledging that the West might sometimes act against its own interests, solely pointing fingers at "the West" for these issues oversimplifies the intricate geopolitical landscape. Yes, NGOs and governmental entities might sometimes support internal resistance to authoritarian regimes, but cynically highlighting the West's interests without considering the nuanced reality doesn't contribute to a balanced perspective.

The West's failures lie in its inconsistent promotion of freedoms using soft power or, at times, misusing hard power. Yes, colonialists might eye resources, but it's infinitely better to engage with nations that knew how to quickly develop and integrate with the West, like South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, which have embraced liberal democracy, anti-corruption measures, and the rule of law. Development, championed by leaders prioritizing structured growth over export-based economies, is the key to creating more just societies and promoting global welfare.

That is to say, just as much as you think it is the lie that the West doesn't want to work with liberal democracies because it's not in their interest, I think the West does prefer to work with them over authoritarian or just any regime. It brings stability, and more chances for trade anyways. "The boogie man" of the West, shouldn't be used as an excuse to not internally resist authoritarian, corrupt, or fundamentalist regimes by pro-democratic forces. External forces are willing to help, but it takes a large internal movement to do so. France didn't help the US right away, but eventually they did in 1778 when they saw the the US was winning at the Battle of Saratoga, and their involvement is what tipped the scales to defeat the British in the American Revolution.

There is a tendency (of anti-Westerners), to romanticize or glorify the "little guy" no matter what- to admire their way of causing small areas of chaos. — schopenhauer1

What's romantic about helplessness?

Whether we're talking about Iran or their Sunni counterparts, it's imperative to view such ideologies as disastrous, and with contempt. — schopenhauer1

Really? It's okay for a big global power to overthrow the democratically elected and set up a horrible shah, for contempt?

While acknowledging that the West might sometimes act against its own interests, solely pointing fingers at "the West" for these issues oversimplifies the intricate geopolitical landscape. — schopenhauer1

I wasn't. All major powers interfere with other nations to promote their own economic and strategic ends.

Also in the mix, that cannot be denied in the Global South is the influence of Russia/the Soviet Union in creating socialist "liberation" movements that used ideas of liberation and hatred of the West and the Global North. — schopenhauer1

Did i forget to mention the USSR? And China? In other times, England, France, Spain, Portugal, Japan... All great global powers, in all eras, have their own agenda and use the weaker nations as pawns.

The West's failures lie in its inconsistent promotion of freedoms using soft power or, at times, misusing hard power. — schopenhauer1

Now, that does sound partisan.

France didn't help the US right away, but eventually they did in 1778 when they saw the the US was winning at the Battle of Saratoga, and their involvement is what tipped the scales to defeat the British in the American Revolution. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, and it helped bring about their own revolution.

In the late 18th century France was on the brink of bankruptcy due to its involvement in the American Revolution and King Louis XVI’s extravagant spending.

Not that their regime wasn't riddled with inequities and stupidities, but that decision, because they had a long-standing feud with England, was very bad from their own POV.

What's romantic about helplessness? — Vera Mont

(fetishizing terroristic suicidal violence that has shitty means and ends) you mean?

Really? It's okay for a big global power to overthrow the democratically elected and set up a horrible shah, for contempt? — Vera Mont

Yep, here we are again. All the big bad West. Why didn't they overthrow the Shah and form a democratic government then? That would REALLY show the West. Yes, American foreign policy during the Cold War was short-sighted, and in this case was going along with the last gasp of Britain's imperialism.

I wasn't. All major powers interfere with other nations to promote their own economic and strategic ends. — Vera Mont

Pretty much. Self-interested nations are the default. That doesn't necessarily mean exploitive. It's up to the other side to understand how to tango correctly -- to let the exploitation be engines of growth. That takes the fortitude to not take money in autocratic and kleptocartic ways. And in that sense, it is not the West's fault for the failure of internal pressures to create a better way. Tunisia, though not perfect, has definitely gotten better than where it was.

Did i forget to mention the USSR? And China? In other times, England, France, Spain, Portugal, Japan... All great global powers, in all eras, have their own agenda and use the weaker nations as pawns. — Vera Mont

Countries have the ability to change from internal pressures. Not everything is from external exploitation. It's not that you are wrong, it is just what you choose to focus on and make excuses with.

Now, that does sound partisan. — Vera Mont

Again, I am acknowledging that external forces can make decisions that are not beneficial, but those external forces ("The Western economic system) is the reality. The fantasy is the "liberation" from it. North Korea and Iran aren't better off because they represent an anti-Western, oppositional stance. The West is still the best orientation to head towards- liberal democracies, integrated strategically, with Western economic systems. Again, that just takes leadership. Often what appears to be Western exploitation is simply government ineptness and corruption. It's hard to parse it out completely.

Yeah, and it helped bring about their own revolution. — Vera Mont

Indeed, but were the circumstances great to begin with? That was again, the violent extremism of France's unique political dynamics. And yes, just like Iran didn't have to "revolve" into a theocracy, France didn't necessarily have to revolve into the chaos of the Sans-Culottes, Jacobins, Hebertists, Dantonists, and their Reign of Terror. The roots of the Enlightenment were there - but it was the irony of taking the rhetoric of the Enlightenment of Voltaire and Rousseau and using them to illiberal extremes.

Not that their regime wasn't riddled with inequities and stupidities, but that decision, because they had a long-standing feud with England, was very bad from their own POV. — Vera Mont

Well anyways, you actually make my point that the unintended consequences of interfering in volatile revolutions (like the Arab Spring) are why it was a "way and see" approach under Obama. But there are plenty of Western organizations willing to help those on the inside, if they are willing to make the first moves to implement the revolutions (without turning them into illiberal democracies).

Why didn't they overthrow the Shah and form a democratic government then? — schopenhauer1

Cos they wanted him in power, silly!

Yes, American foreign policy during the Cold War was short-sighted, and in this case was going along with the last gasp of Britain's imperialism. — schopenhauer1

And then took over primary role with its own form of imperialism. It's still short-sighted, Look at the mess they made of the middle east in the last 30 years.

Well anyways, you actually make my point that the unintended consequences of interfering in volatile revolutions (like the Arab Spring) — schopenhauer1

and the American war of independence...

Yes, I do see where you're coming from.

Cos they wanted him in power, silly! — Vera Mont

I meant the Iranians.. not the Americans. Why didn't they "revolve" into a better democracy and not a theocratic regime? It's not like they had to form a theocratic regime. But that's what they wanted, silly!

And then took over primary role with its own form of imperialism. It's still short-sighted, Look at the mess they made of the middle east in the last 30 years. — Vera Mont

A lot of the mess originated in Cold War policies. However, to be fair, it's not like they had great players to choose from internally... In the left corner you have Saddam Hussein.. in the right even worse...

But that's what they wanted, silly! — schopenhauer1

People are silly a lot of the time. Especially when they're disillusioned and feel betrayed, they tend to reach for the security blanket of tradition.

A lot of the mess originated in Cold War policies. — schopenhauer1

Sure. they were instrumental in making that. Big Four, you know? And the whole Israel mess.

People are silly a lot of the time. Especially when they're disillusioned and feel betrayed, they tend to reach for the security blanket of tradition. — Vera Mont

Indeed they are. For whatever sociological or psychological reason, they chose poorly as to how to formulate their new government. That is an internal failing. That decision and impulse itself cannot be blamed on the West, EVEN if the West did interfere in their politics earlier.

, takes democrats internally + externally, people standing up, not forgetting. Easier said than done.

For whatever sociological or psychological reason, they chose poorly as to how to formulate their new government. — schopenhauer1

But the first coup wasn't their idea. That was interference from a world power with hugely disproportionate economic resources.

Easier said than done. — jorndoe

Especially when you're in prison, in exile or dead.

But the first coup wasn't their idea. That was interference from a world power with hugely disproportionate economic resources. — Vera Mont

That doesn't address my point. I stated:

That decision and impulse itself cannot be blamed on the West, EVEN if the West did interfere in their politics earlier. — schopenhauer1

In fact, it wasn't the "impulse" but that impulse that was ACTED UPON. I mean, I could argue that my first impulse might be, "Screw you, I'm going to show the West how great we are by going back to a theocratic state." But the impulse was followed through and enacted. Rather, the eventual response could have been, "Oh wait, I could form a more robust democracy that becomes an economically thriving state for its citizens, without being exploited".

I think your implicit premise is that if "the West" interferes, the ONLY response is to then move to radicalism or authoritarianism. That is not the case, nor is the West forcing that to be the case, once a revolution takes place. Or alternatively, the West isn't "stopping" the populous from doing a mass revolt.