“This house believes that the Arab Spring has done more harm than good”

Read Nadeine and Aaqib’s stances on the motion prior to the debate here

[one_third]

Aaqib Javed

So after a tense, informative and at times controversial debate I’ve had time to digest the myriad of opinions and experiences shared by panel and audience alike. The motion was flatly rejected by the audience, which should come as little surprise given the stereotypically liberal attitudes that most students possess. However, with a significant number of the listeners opting to agree with the proposition, it is evident that what started as a brave and passionate push for freedom and justice has now become a far more pessimistic affair.

Barak Seener, a RUSI expert in the Middle East, and Dr. Maria Holt, a specialist in Middle Eastern politics, attempted to uphold the proposition by painting a pessimistic picture of the stagnant revolution. Citing the dangers of “Islamism”, both Seener and Holt highlighted the apparent failure of the ruling non-secular AKP party in Turkey to maintain a stable democracy as an example of religious based politics failing to succeed in a viable democracy. Though this claim is contentious as the AKP has been in power in Turkey for more than 12 years, both panellists were keen to stress the dangers of religious-based ideology interfering with the Arab Spring. Dr. Holt also cited the decision of Libya to allow polygamy in a post-Gaddafi era as another indicator that the Arab Spring had failed those who have strived to topple regimes.

Dr. Noel Brehony and Meg Munn MP, who have studied and worked in the Middle East respectively, argued against the motion, stressing that any change in a regime must be met with caution and nurtured rather than be expected to instantly appear successful. Meg Munn MP argued that a new found ability in the region to demand rights would increase the amount of autonomous activism citizens undertook, which would lead to an increase of political and social rights. Dr. Brehony stressed that the presence of non-secular political elements within Tunisia, Egypt and Libya did not mean that the Arab Spring could be construed as a failure but instead displayed a newfound political freedom now present in nations that had been ruled by dictatorships.

Although one can easily determine that the Arab Spring has brought about a great deal of suffering and political strife, the very fact that the seedlings of change have now been planted in the minds of those who now believe their voice, once suppressed, has value and power, is enough to determine it a success. If we were to judge revolutions on the grounds of suffering, then both the French and American revolutions should be deemed as failures. No transition from a bloodthirsty dictatorship to a peaceful democracy has ever run its course peacefully. Whether we are pessimistic or optimistic, the Arab Spring will be no quick fix to a more democratic Middle East.
[/one_third]

[one_third_last]

Nadeine Asbali

The premise was flawed from the outset, and the course of the (albeit engaging) debate did little in the way of proving otherwise.

A centralised Arab voice was certainly lacking. To discuss in such a blasé, arrogant manner just how wrong the Middle East has got it, all from a very limited Western paradigm, can (and arguably did) appear patronising and counterproductive. To exclude the very subject of this discussion, is to reduce a fiery, passionate movement to mere cold facts and figures. What is a very human movement was stripped of its human element, and rendered detached and secondary.

An idea that seemed to resonate amongst those who supported the motion, was that the success of the Arab Spring should be determined by just how ‘pro-West’ the post-Arab Spring governments are. It is highly ethnocentric to force a grassroots movement, conceived in North Africa, to adhere to Western templates of geopolitics, society and laws – or else be deemed a failure. As long as we continue to compare our own long-entrenched liberal, democratic norms with countries who are only just experiencing the dawn of democracy after decades of autocracy, then discourse will continue to be unconstructive and riddled with superiority and judgement.

Another recurring theme was the ongoing issue of women’s rights. It is naïve to assume that such ingrained issues within the culture will be uprooted and revolutionised so swiftly, and even more so to assume that misogyny has grown worse as a result of the Arab Spring. Given that sexism has long been an issue within the region, it is completely unfounded to reason that the Arab Spring has caused more harm than good for females. Despite doing little in the way of massively emancipating women, it has, at least, allowed a platform for public discourse and leeway for small gains in the battle for female equality. Contrary to the picture of rife female genital mutilation, rape and child marriage painted by some, a shift in thinking is certainly beginning. There are now more women in Tunisia’s Congress than our own equivalent. A matter of years ago, in Libya, it was seen as scandalous for a woman to pursue a Law degree, yet now the highest position in Benghazi’s judiciary is held by a woman.

Having experienced both a pre- and post- revolution North Africa, I find it difficult to accept the motion (which was rejected by the House). The Arab Spring has not rendered the Middle East a hopeless vacuum, but it has not revolutionised it beyond recognition either. What it has, crucially, achieved is the alleviation of iron fist suppression of discourse, which is already beginning a much anticipated paradigm shift, clear to anyone open-minded enough to see it.
[/one_third_last]

[one_third]

“How to explain the Arab Spring to a dead hare” – Cartoon by Charley-Kai John

[/one_third]