Oldtime revolutionary lore

As Tunisian flu has now spread from Egypt to Iran, Bahrain and Yemen, with a touch also in Algeria and now Libya, it might be wise to review what an old hand views as a few crucial points (I first sat down in front of the bayonet-armed and gas-masked Maryland National Guard in 1964 and got teargassed by the U.S. Army at Fort Dix in 1968, so I am claiming some seniority here).  I was also an early and strong supporter of the Serb uprising that forced Slobodan Milosevic out.

One key point is nonviolent discipline, not because of the moral requirement but because it will make the demonstrations more effective. Another is clarity–and simplicity–of objectives.

Why is nonviolence important?  Because you want the security forces to hesitate to crack down–they won’t hesitate if you are throwing rocks at them–they’ll fight back, and by definition they have greater firepower.  Only if the security forces hesitate to crack down is autocracy in trouble, because it rules by fear.  No crackdown, no fear, no autocrat.

The problem is that the security forces often use violence first, or maybe it will be the thugs allied with the regime (the basij in Iran, the club-wielders in Sanaa).  The use of these people is already a good sign:  it means the regime has doubts about the willingness of the regular security forces to do the dirty deed.  The trouble of course is that the thugs can cause a lot of damage.

They will hesitate to use violence only if confronted with a great mass of disciplined people.  Going out in groups of twenty to do pitched battle with thugs is no way to make a revolution–it only gets your head cracked.  People often suffer the most harm when there were few demonstrators, and at night.

That is another reason for keeping things nonviolent–many people won’t come out for a riot. The attack on camels and horses in Cairo was a turning point:  Egyptians were disgusted by a blatant attack on large numbers of ordinary, peaceful people.  Had it looked as if the attack had been provoked by violent demonstrators, the effect would have been much less salutary from the protesters’ perspective.

What about objectives?  Clarity and simplicity are important.  The protesters in Egypt were clearly aiming ultimately for democracy, but the crowds rallied around the call for Mubarak to step down.

Now that he has, there are emerging differences among the many factions that united in the demonstrations–that is only natural.  Some will think a constitutional route to democracy is best, others a non-constitutional route.  Some will want higher wages, better treatment for workers, rights for minorities–only by suppressing for the moment these differences and focusing on a common objective can a motley crew be forged into a powerful mass movement.  There will be time enough after the goal is reached for the protesters to fall out with each other and sow confusion by going their own ways.

Keeping people together, across secular/sectarian and religious or ethnic divides, sends a very powerful message and rallies more people to the cause.

One last note:  Obama’s soft approach is the right one.  Hillary Clinton’s more strident advocacy is not a good idea.