Opinion

The Great Debate

The experts were wrong, again

By Guest Contributor
February 11, 2011

By David Keyes, who is the director of CyberDissidents.org, an organization that highlights the writings and activities of dissident bloggers. The opinions expressed are his own.

Moments ago, Egypt’s dictator, Hosni Mubarak, stepped down after 30 years in power — following on the heels of Tunisia’s dictator who fled his country after ruling for 23 years.

At this remarkable moment in Middle Eastern history, it is worth recalling what scholars, diplomats and pundits said in years past about stability in Egypt and Tunisia. This jog down memory lane is one of those delicious moments where the experts are yet again proved ignorant of the present and incapable of predicting the future.

In 2007, then US ambassador to Egypt, Francis Riccardione, declared that the country was the “rock of stability in this region.” Two weeks ago, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said, “the Egyptian government is stable” and State Department spokesman PJ Crowley echoed that Egypt was an “anchor of stability.”

To any student of history, all of this was eerily reminiscent of Jimmy Carter’s pronouncement on the eve of the Iranian revolution that the country was an “island of stability.” At midnight on December 31, 1977, Carter raised a glass of champagne and toasted Mohamed Reza Pahlavi, proclaiming that the Shah enjoyed “his people’s total confidence.” Just before the Iranian autocrat was toppled, Britain’s ambassador in Iran said, “There has been little or no evidence of unrest among the urban poor.” That year, Pahlavi boasted,“Nobody can overthrow me.  I have the support of 700,000 troops, all the workers and most of the people.”

Days ago, as over a million people fearlessly gathered to protest corruption and dictatorship in Egypt, Al Jazeera declared without a hint of irony that the Egyptian people were famous for their apathy. The New York Times described the Egyptian public as “apolitical and largely apathetic.” There were, of course, elements of truth to these caricatures, but much greater humility was called for. The Egyptian people were apathetic — until suddenly one day they weren’t.  Egypt was a rock of stability — until suddenly one day it wasn’t.

Steven Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations was not exaggerating when he wrote recently that “many of my colleagues considered Ben Ali’s Tunisia as among the most stable of stable political systems.” Journalists who covered the region were fond of saying that despite his heavy-handed tactics, censorship, rampant corruption and authoritarianism, Tunisia under Ben Ali was stable, moderate, literate and relatively prosperous. They also claimed that Ben Ali was here to stay. In late 2009, The Economist confidently asserted that even after more than two decades in power, the dictator’s reign “is by no means over yet.”

In 2003, renowned foreign correspondent, Georgie Anne Geyer, wrote a book titled “Tunisia: A Journey Through a Country That Works.” On one of her many visits to the country, Geyer sat in a cafe in Sidi Bou Said – the same city, ironically enough, where the Jasmine Revolution was sparked. For several hours she relaxed and was “as happy as the black and white cats that were leaping from rooftop to cafe and from cafe to exquisite doorway in the magical city.”  Charming.

Tunisians were “admiring all the lovely things in the shops and lingering over coffee and drinks in the picturesque little restaurants and bars. I looked, but I did not see any revolutionaries marching down the streets promising the perfect society, nor any utopian dreamers who would either be crushed by the tanks of the righteous when the revolution came or be destroyed by their own grandiosity. I saw no-one who looked even a bit afraid and no-one who looked remotely persecuted.”

Geyer saw no revolutionaries, no fear and no persecution for the same reason that Walter Duranty saw no famine in the Soviet Union in the 1930s — he did not want to see it. There is no limit to man’s ability to deceive himself. Tunisia was a “country that worked” — until one day it didn’t. Simmering beneath the facade of stability were decades of repression and marginalization. Tunisians loathed the corrupt and pompous gang that ruled over them.

All one really needed to know about Tunsia is that it was ruled by just two men since its founding 55 years ago. Ben Ali treated his people as children, unworthy of political freedom and incapable of choosing their leader. So did Mubarak who eliminated opposition and ruled for three decades. Both dictators fought jihadists and so the West showered them with praise. Professors, pundits and the press were all too eager to explain in exquisite, lofty rhetoric why Arabs weren’t quite ready for pesky democratic rights and inherently unstable liberty.

“[T]he Tunisia experience,” wrote Geyer in 2003, “spoke a daring truth — that not all people are immediately ready for democracy … [Tunisians] didn’t need any revolutions, nor even any rebellions; and unless every indicator was wrong, Tunisians were still willing to give their leaders a long political leash as they continued to make their way through the minefields of development and change.” What she ignored, along with almost everyone else, is simple truth that the number of double thinkers in closed societies is almost always higher than we imagine and the number of true believers lower.

One month ago, few would have entertained the thought that Mubarak’s regime was about to collapse. Almost no one saw the fall of the Soviet Union coming either. In 1982, Sovietologist Severyn Bailer proclaimed that the USSR “will not go bankrupt … like the political system it will not collapse.” John Kennith Galbraith spoke of a thriving Soviet economy and E.A. Hewett claimed in 1988 that Soviet citizens enjoyed “massive economic security.”

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates confessed that “virtually no one in the defense or intelligence business predicted that the Soviet Union was bound for the dustbin of history until it hit bottom.” It was left to imprisoned poets like Andre Alamrik to presciently ask “Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?”

There has been much talk — and will be much more — about what exactly toppled Ben Ali and Mubarak. Why now and not last year or a decade ago? The short answer is that we haven’t a clue and probably never will. The mighty Black Swan emerged from her shadowy nest and once again made fools of everyone. We should learn from this experience — although if history is any indicator, we won’t.

David Keyes can be reached at david@cyberdissidents.org.

Comments
8 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

Quoting:

“in Sidi Bou Said — the same city, ironically enough, where the Jasmine Revolution was sparked”

Sidi Bou Said, indeed a nice turist location just outside Tunis. But the Jasmine revolution started in Sidi Bouzid, near Kasserine…

Posted by Ed_Portugal | Report as abusive
 

Aren’t you a genius! Anybody can wait until it’s over, then pick out how everyone else was wrong. So where is the reference to your prediction of this event? You seemed to have omitted it. Yes, all of those people were wrong, but at least they had the courage to say what they thought. You, David, sat silent, waited for the situation to play out, and then opened your mouth. I’m not impressed.

Posted by jflogel | Report as abusive
 

It helps to select experts who tell you what you want to hear. This has been a very serious problem for the American government in the Muslim world for at least a half century. Fifty years of bungled interaction is no accident. You can find Dr. Pangloss easily if you go looking.

It does not help that we rely on the analysis of people who are not ethnically neutral, and then pretend that they are. Why the rest of us cannot see this as a problem is a peculiar American flaw.

Perhaps we will begin hearing alternative points of view. But I would not count on that.

Posted by txgadfly | Report as abusive
 

“Moments ago, Egypt’s dictator, Hosni Mubarak”, did Egyptian people elect him 6 year ago?

People want to listen different story, then he is dictator now

Posted by tim_waite | Report as abusive
 

The experts judge from a position of superiority, I suspect. This causes them to see people less intelligent or people in less sophisticated societies as a special set of humans. They’re obedient, happy in their dictatorships, willing to forgo basic human rights and desires. The people in Tunisia and Egypt yearn for freedom and require it every bit as much as people in the United States, Europe or anywhere else. Deny them long enough, diminish their living conditions long enough, restrict their opportunities long enough and they will rise up But if you start from the proposition that this potential is not there in the “little people” then you make huge errors due to your paternalistic and unrealistic assessment of people everywhere.

Posted by mcollinsdc | Report as abusive
 

Very Apt analysis by David Keys . Remember still waters are dangerous than rising storms.With all the rhetoric of the Despots and fear mongering learnt from their masters.There is no way an un truth will prevail for long time .

Posted by Ismailtaimur | Report as abusive
 

History also teaches us that Egypt will most likely become an Islamic extremist state, which was what Mubarak was trying to stop from happening in the first place. Just by being president Mubarak was stopping Islamic extremism from ruling the country.

Posted by BryantNAL | Report as abusive
 

Keep up your valuable analyses. Your blog is an excellent predictor of future events because the people in charge don’t want to recognize any activities that threaten their position, so they will declare their own wishful thinking until the last minute.
The phenomenon is similar to what happens in stock markets. Contrarians often come out ahead.

Posted by lexus | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •