Devrim nedir?
Tunus'la başlayan ve Mısır'da devam eden toplumsal hareketlerin devrim olup olmadığı sorusu bugünlerde herkesin tasası haline gelmiş durumda. Belki Müslüman veya Arap toplumlarına bütün metafizik çağrışımlarıyla birlikte büyük harfli "Devrim"i kimse yakıştırmıyordur. Müslüman toplumlarda devrimler değil saraylarında idareci değişiklikleri olur yönündeki meşhur Oryantalist klişe yeniden hatırlanıyor ve dillendiriliyor. Oysa belki de işe Michel Foucault'nun batıda gerçekleşen devrimler için bile sorduğu sorudan başlamak gerekiyor: "Bir Devrim nedir?" Devrimden beklenti nedir ve Batıdaki devrimler gerçekten neyi ne kadar değiştirmiştir?
Fransız Devrimi, Sanayi Devrimi, Sovyet Devrimi Avrupa'da neyi değiştirdiyse orta Doğu'daki Devrim dalgaları da mutlaka o kadar şey değiştirecek görünüyor. Değiştireceği şey insanın tabiatı olmayacaktır. Kadın ve erkeğin tabiatı olmayacaktır. Birilerinin ütopik beklentilerini bir günden bir güne gerçekleştirecek de değildir. Devrime herkes başka bir anlam ve beklenti atfediyor olabilir. Bu kaçınılmaz bir durumdur. Devrim zaten birbirinden çok farklı beklentilerin hepsini bir noktaya celp edebilen bir büyük cereyana tabi bir süreçtir. Bu anlamıyla Mısır'da gerçekleşmekte olan Devrim'in garip bir biçimde hiçbir planlayıcısının olmadığı gerçeği Devrimin hiçbir partiye, gruba veya belirli bir aktöre mal edilemeyen bir toplumsal tabiat olayı şeklinde tezahür etmesi aslında bütün siyasi aktörlerin veya toplum mühendislerinin üzerinde ibretle duracakları bir konudur.
Mısır'da kim ne derse desin ne ABD'nin ne İsrail'in ne Mısır derin devletinin ne de hatta bugün devrim sürecinde yer almakta olan (başta İhvan, Baradey veya Kifaye hareketleri olmak üzere) hiçbir aktörün tek başına süreci kontrol edemiyor olduklarını görmek gerekiyor. Buna rağmen Devrim büyük harfli keyfiyetiyle cereyan ediyor ve bu saatten sonra Orta Doğu halkları üzerindeki bütün etkisiyle birlikte rolünü oynamaya devam edecektir.
Kuşkusuz Devrim'in bu öznesiz niteliği, siyasi aktörlerin siyasi duruşlarının hiçbir anlamı ve etkisinin olmadığı anlamına gelmiyor. Aksine bu Devrim bütün bu hareketlerin şimdiye kadar besledikleri tutum ve duyguların birbirine eklemlenerek oluşturduğu bir birikimin sonucu olmuştur. Devrimin başından itibaren ABD'nin tutumunu defalarca değiştirmek durumunda kaldığına dikkat etmek gerekiyor. Bu da Devrim dalgalarının ne kadar öngörülemez ve kestirilemez olduğunu gösteriyor. Bu Devrim her şeyden önce insanın her şeyi kontrol edebileceğine dair duyduğu kibre karşı ibretlik bir ders olarak tarihe geçecektir. İçerdiği başka dersleri de günübirlik öğrenmeye devam edeceğiz.
* * *
İKTİDAR MÜCADELESİ VE DEMOKRASİ VEYA YAZAR VE ÜSLUBU
Perşembe günü yazılarımı sürekli okuduğunu bildiğim bir arkadaşımdan aldığım bir telefon bana o gün yayımlanan yazımı üslubuma ve çizgime yakıştıramadığını dolayı anlatıyordu. Bir yanlışının olduğunu benim yazı günümün Cumartesi ve Pazartesi olduğunu söylediysem de arkadaş ısrar edince gazeteye bakma ihtiyacı duydum.
Tahmin ettiğim gibi sevgili Yasin Doğan'ın yazısının yerinde benim klişem vardı. Okuyucular cephesinden sıkça karşılaştığım bu karıştırma bu sefer bizim gazete tarafından yapılmış, olsun, düzeltilir, kendimizi birbirimizden çok kalın çizgilerle temyiz etmeyi gerektirecek bir durum yok. Nitekim dün Doğan'ın köşesinde bir açıklamayla düzeltildi, internet sayfasında da durum düzeltildi. Sorun yok. Ama bu vesileyle bu yazı üzerine izlenimlerini aktaranlardan dolayı bir yazar üslubunun veya çizgisinin okuyucu ile arasında nasıl bir aşinalık oluşturmuş olduğunu görmüş olmaktan dolayı ufak çaplı bir mutluluk yaşadığımı da belirtmeden geçmeyeyim. Okuyucu kimi okuyorsa ondan bir şeyler de bekliyor. Beklemediği bir tutumla karşılaştığında zorluyor yönlendiriyor veya terk ediyor. Her yazar kendi okuyucusunu bir şekilde çekiyor, belki oluşturuyor, okuyucunun beklentileri de yazarın üzerinde ciddi bir baskı oluşturuyor. Bu baskı hiç de sağlıksız bir baskı sayılmaz. Yazarın tabii ki tek mikyası değildir ama önemli dikkat alanlarından biridir.
Hem bulunduğu mevkiden dolayı hem de kendine has üslubundan dolayı yazılarını benim de her zaman dikkatle okuduğum yazarlardandır Yasin Doğan. Herkes gibi katıldığım katılmadığım birçok yazısı olmuştur. Ama şimdiye kadar hiç kendisiyle bir tartışmaya girmiş değilim. Hazır yazısı sehven de olsa benim imzam ve klişem altında yayımlanmışken yazısını daha bir dikkatle okudum ve yazısında söylediği en azından bir noktaya takılmadan geçemedim. Takıldığım cümlesi şu: "CHP demokratikleşme mücadelesi vermiyor, iktidar mücadelesi veriyor. CHP'nin çağrısı 'Türkiye'yi demokratikleştirelim' mantığına değil, 'sen kalk ben oturayım' mantığına dayanıyor."
Doğrusu CHP'nin şu ana kadar Türkiye'yi demokratikleştirme gibi bir iddiaya ısrarla ve ağırlıklı bir söylem olarak sarıldığını herkes gibi ben de hatırlamıyorum. Dolayısıyla CHP'nin ülkeyi demokratikleşme konusunda son zamanlarda sergilediği performans kendisiyle gayet tutarlı bir performans. Ancak bu performansa rağmen CHP'nin açılan demokratik zeminde bir iktidar mücadelesine daha fazla odaklanmış olmasında da yadırganacak bir şey bulamıyorum. Siyaseti herkes daha fazla demokratikleşmek için yapmak zorunda değil. Kimi bunu sadece kendi etnik, sınıfsal veya dinsel çıkarlarını veya iktidarını geliştirmek üzere yapar, kimi de sadece demokratikleşme için yapar. Kim ne için yapıyorsa kendi ödülünü de bir şekilde beklediği yerden alır.
Ayrıca demokrasi iktidar mücadelesini ayıplamaya da yer bırakmayan bir rejim. Demokrasi zemininde bütün mücadelenin özü daha fazla iktidardır. Kimseden demokrasi mücadelesini sadece hayır hasenat için yapması beklenemez. Bir yandan demokrasi mücadelesinin içine iktidar talebi girer, bir yandan da iktidar mücadelesi demokratikleşmenin zeminini güçlendirir. Yeter ki iktidar mücadelesi demokratik zemini yok etme pahasına her türlü ahlak dışı yönteme başvurmayı da içeriyor olmasın.
sábado, 5 de febrero de 2011
In Turkey, Some See a Map for Egypt
In Turkey, Some See a Map for Egypt
Protesters in Istanbul linked President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt to Israel and President Obama.
As Egypt struggles to reinvent itself, many experts in the region say that it might look to Turkey for some valuable lessons.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey seems on a path to win his third election in a row, having effectively neutered a once-all-powerful military.
Arriving at a template that effectively integrates Islam, democracy and vibrant economics has been a near-impossible dream for Middle East reformers stretching back decades. To a large extent, Egypt’s inability to accommodate these three themes lies at the root of its current plight.
But no country in the region has come closer to accomplishing this trick, warts and all, than Turkey. As a result, diplomats and analysts have begun to present the still-incomplete Turkish experiment as a possible road map for Egypt.
“Turkey is the envy of the Arab world,” said Hugh Pope, project director for the Turkish office of the International Crisis Group. “It has moved to a robust democracy, has a genuinely elected leader who seems to speak for the popular mood, has products that are popular from Afghanistan to Morocco — including dozens of sitcoms dubbed into Arabic that are on TV sets everywhere — and an economy that is worth about half of the whole Arab world put together.”
The idea is not new. President Obama’s first trip as president to a Muslim country was to Turkey in April 2009, and he hailed its progress as a Middle East model. (His visit there preceded his better-remembered speech in Cairo by two months.)
Since then, the already wide distance separating these countries has grown. Turkey’s economy and its internationally competitive companies are expanding at a relentless pace. Meanwhile, its mildly Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, seems on a path to win his third election in a row, having effectively neutered a once-all-powerful military apparatus long seen as the guardian of secularism in the country.
It has not always been this way.
Indeed, when Hosni Mubarak came to power in Egypt in October 1981, after the assassination of President Anwar el-Sadat, Turkey was still being governed by its army, which one year earlier intervened to impose a sense of order on the country’s fractious political scene.
But while Mr. Mubarak, a military man himself, banked upon authoritarian rule, paying only lip service to democratic institutions and running rigged elections, the general behind the Turkish coup, Kenan Evren, moved to withdraw from politics. The constitution he imposed left the military considerable scope to meddle in political affairs, but it allowed civilian institutions to bloom.
On the economic front Egypt maintained state control, with many restrictions on foreign trade and domestic competition. By contrast, Turkey, which hopes to join the European Union, has opened up its economy and unleashed a dynamic private sector.
Today, with similarly sized populations of about 80 million, Turkey has an economy that is nearly four times the size of Egypt’s.
Its recent growth spurt has been driven by Mr. Erdogan, who came to power in 2003 and focused first on reducing deficits and bringing down inflation. Only after he demonstrated success in raising living standards did he feel confident enough to overcome opposition from the determinedly secular army and the cosmopolitan elite in Istanbul by introducing elements of Islam into Turkish public life.
He has been rewarded with broad popular support at home — demonstrated in September when Mr. Erdogan easily won a referendum that further diluted the military’s powers — and growing influence abroad.
In responding to the Egypt crisis, President Obama telephoned Prime Minister Erdogan twice in six days to discuss the unfolding events, and administration officials say they have been keeping in close contact with their Turkish counterparts at all levels.
“There’s no question that Turkey can play a role,” one administration official said. The official, speaking on grounds of anonymity, noted that Mr. Erdogan and Turkish leaders had publicly called for Mr. Mubarak to listen to what the protesters on the streets of Cairo had been saying — words that might have heartened democracy advocates in the Muslim world.
Turkey’s ability to thrive as a predominantly Muslim country that maintains diplomatic relations — though chilly — with Israel is one that American officials would like to see other Muslim nations develop.
But it is also true that actions taken by the Erdogan government against the Turkish news media have been a cause for some concern, a point made recently by the new American ambassador to Turkey, Francis J. Ricciardone Jr., who was ambassador to Egypt from 2005 to 2008.
With the Egyptian military likely to play the role of political guarantor in any transition from Mr. Mubarak’s rule, analysts suggest that Turkey might serve as a model for introducing new political parties, writing a constitution from scratch and ultimately stepping aside and letting the democratic process play out (as uncomfortable as that might be) — all of which the Turkish military has done since the 1980 coup.
“The military did not overplay its hand in Turkey,” said Soner Cagaptay, an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Mr. Cagaptay also said that even though Mr. Erdogan had made gains in pushing his Islamist agenda, the military served as an effective restraint.
“The relative moderation of Islamic parties in Turkey is due to the military,” he said.
There are still substantial differences between the countries. For the Turkish military, its organizing philosophy has always been preserving the secularist traditions that Turkey’s post-World War I founder, Kemal Ataturk, set in place. In Egypt, while the Muslim Brotherhood has been officially banned, the army has been seen more as the defender of the authoritarian status quo rather than secularism itself.
How the military in Egypt deals with the Muslim Brotherhood — by far the most powerful civic force in the country — will be crucial in determining the country’s political future.
Can it, as was the case in Turkey, encourage the formation of competing political parties? And can it encourage the moderate elements of the Muslim Brotherhood to come to the fore rather than its more militant factions?
Turkey may have a more direct role to play on that front. Mr. Erdogan’s party has already established ties to the Muslim Brotherhood — a result of Mr. Erdogan’s long and successful campaign to present himself as a dominant and increasingly anti-Israeli voice in the Middle East.
According to research by Dore Gold at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, three members of the Muslim Brotherhood — two of whom serve in the Egyptian Parliament — were on the Turkish-sponsored ship that was attacked by Israeli forces on its way to deliver aid to the Gaza Strip in May.
“There is a great deal of ideological compatibility between the A.K.P. and the Muslim Brotherhood,” said Mr. Gold, a former top adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, referring to Mr. Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party. “This is something to watch carefully.”
Perhaps, but in the end that could be a plus rather than a minus.
For all his Islamist sympathies, Mr. Erdogan is at root a pragmatist. As a young firebrand he was jailed for his antisecular rhetoric but now, after working within Turkey’s democratic framework rather than outside it, he is recognized as perhaps the Middle East’s most influential figure.
Protesters in Istanbul linked President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt to Israel and President Obama.
As Egypt struggles to reinvent itself, many experts in the region say that it might look to Turkey for some valuable lessons.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey seems on a path to win his third election in a row, having effectively neutered a once-all-powerful military.
Arriving at a template that effectively integrates Islam, democracy and vibrant economics has been a near-impossible dream for Middle East reformers stretching back decades. To a large extent, Egypt’s inability to accommodate these three themes lies at the root of its current plight.
But no country in the region has come closer to accomplishing this trick, warts and all, than Turkey. As a result, diplomats and analysts have begun to present the still-incomplete Turkish experiment as a possible road map for Egypt.
“Turkey is the envy of the Arab world,” said Hugh Pope, project director for the Turkish office of the International Crisis Group. “It has moved to a robust democracy, has a genuinely elected leader who seems to speak for the popular mood, has products that are popular from Afghanistan to Morocco — including dozens of sitcoms dubbed into Arabic that are on TV sets everywhere — and an economy that is worth about half of the whole Arab world put together.”
The idea is not new. President Obama’s first trip as president to a Muslim country was to Turkey in April 2009, and he hailed its progress as a Middle East model. (His visit there preceded his better-remembered speech in Cairo by two months.)
Since then, the already wide distance separating these countries has grown. Turkey’s economy and its internationally competitive companies are expanding at a relentless pace. Meanwhile, its mildly Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, seems on a path to win his third election in a row, having effectively neutered a once-all-powerful military apparatus long seen as the guardian of secularism in the country.
It has not always been this way.
Indeed, when Hosni Mubarak came to power in Egypt in October 1981, after the assassination of President Anwar el-Sadat, Turkey was still being governed by its army, which one year earlier intervened to impose a sense of order on the country’s fractious political scene.
But while Mr. Mubarak, a military man himself, banked upon authoritarian rule, paying only lip service to democratic institutions and running rigged elections, the general behind the Turkish coup, Kenan Evren, moved to withdraw from politics. The constitution he imposed left the military considerable scope to meddle in political affairs, but it allowed civilian institutions to bloom.
On the economic front Egypt maintained state control, with many restrictions on foreign trade and domestic competition. By contrast, Turkey, which hopes to join the European Union, has opened up its economy and unleashed a dynamic private sector.
Today, with similarly sized populations of about 80 million, Turkey has an economy that is nearly four times the size of Egypt’s.
Its recent growth spurt has been driven by Mr. Erdogan, who came to power in 2003 and focused first on reducing deficits and bringing down inflation. Only after he demonstrated success in raising living standards did he feel confident enough to overcome opposition from the determinedly secular army and the cosmopolitan elite in Istanbul by introducing elements of Islam into Turkish public life.
He has been rewarded with broad popular support at home — demonstrated in September when Mr. Erdogan easily won a referendum that further diluted the military’s powers — and growing influence abroad.
In responding to the Egypt crisis, President Obama telephoned Prime Minister Erdogan twice in six days to discuss the unfolding events, and administration officials say they have been keeping in close contact with their Turkish counterparts at all levels.
“There’s no question that Turkey can play a role,” one administration official said. The official, speaking on grounds of anonymity, noted that Mr. Erdogan and Turkish leaders had publicly called for Mr. Mubarak to listen to what the protesters on the streets of Cairo had been saying — words that might have heartened democracy advocates in the Muslim world.
Turkey’s ability to thrive as a predominantly Muslim country that maintains diplomatic relations — though chilly — with Israel is one that American officials would like to see other Muslim nations develop.
But it is also true that actions taken by the Erdogan government against the Turkish news media have been a cause for some concern, a point made recently by the new American ambassador to Turkey, Francis J. Ricciardone Jr., who was ambassador to Egypt from 2005 to 2008.
With the Egyptian military likely to play the role of political guarantor in any transition from Mr. Mubarak’s rule, analysts suggest that Turkey might serve as a model for introducing new political parties, writing a constitution from scratch and ultimately stepping aside and letting the democratic process play out (as uncomfortable as that might be) — all of which the Turkish military has done since the 1980 coup.
“The military did not overplay its hand in Turkey,” said Soner Cagaptay, an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Mr. Cagaptay also said that even though Mr. Erdogan had made gains in pushing his Islamist agenda, the military served as an effective restraint.
“The relative moderation of Islamic parties in Turkey is due to the military,” he said.
There are still substantial differences between the countries. For the Turkish military, its organizing philosophy has always been preserving the secularist traditions that Turkey’s post-World War I founder, Kemal Ataturk, set in place. In Egypt, while the Muslim Brotherhood has been officially banned, the army has been seen more as the defender of the authoritarian status quo rather than secularism itself.
How the military in Egypt deals with the Muslim Brotherhood — by far the most powerful civic force in the country — will be crucial in determining the country’s political future.
Can it, as was the case in Turkey, encourage the formation of competing political parties? And can it encourage the moderate elements of the Muslim Brotherhood to come to the fore rather than its more militant factions?
Turkey may have a more direct role to play on that front. Mr. Erdogan’s party has already established ties to the Muslim Brotherhood — a result of Mr. Erdogan’s long and successful campaign to present himself as a dominant and increasingly anti-Israeli voice in the Middle East.
According to research by Dore Gold at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, three members of the Muslim Brotherhood — two of whom serve in the Egyptian Parliament — were on the Turkish-sponsored ship that was attacked by Israeli forces on its way to deliver aid to the Gaza Strip in May.
“There is a great deal of ideological compatibility between the A.K.P. and the Muslim Brotherhood,” said Mr. Gold, a former top adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, referring to Mr. Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party. “This is something to watch carefully.”
Perhaps, but in the end that could be a plus rather than a minus.
For all his Islamist sympathies, Mr. Erdogan is at root a pragmatist. As a young firebrand he was jailed for his antisecular rhetoric but now, after working within Turkey’s democratic framework rather than outside it, he is recognized as perhaps the Middle East’s most influential figure.
viernes, 4 de febrero de 2011
miércoles, 2 de febrero de 2011
Un Cambio Histórico en Oriente Medio Pone a Prueba a Estados Unidos
Un Cambio Histórico en Oriente Medio Pone a Prueba a Estados Unidos
El mundo ahora es testigo de un cambio histórico que se está dando en Oriente Medio. Las protestas iniciaron el 17 de diciembre de 2010, cuando un joven diplomado y desempleado de 26 años se incendió en un acto de desesperación frente a la alcaldía de la ciudad de Sidi Bouzid, después de que oficiales gubernamentales le confiscaron la carreta de verduras que vendía para ganarse la vida. Rápidamente este joven se convirtió en símbolo de protesta de las frustraciones de los miles de jóvenes tunecinos, que viven en el desempleo y enfrentan un futuro sin esperanzas de mejora. Las movilizaciones espontáneas se gestaron primero en Sidi Bouzid y rápidamente se expandieron a todo el país, sumando las demandas, reformas políticas, denunciando al régimen de Ben Ali, la corrupción de la élite cercana al presidente, la falta de libertades políticas y el control total de los medios. El dictador, Zine Abidine Ben Ali, que estaba en el poder hace veinte tres años tuvo que escapar del país. Estas manifestaciones que se inició en Túnez hizo un efecto dómino en otros países como Yemen y en especial en Egipto.
Pero lo más importante de estas manifestaciones es la de Egipto. Este país a lo largo de la historia tomó el liderazgo del mundo árabe. Fue líder de la ideología panarabista, tiene una población con más de ochenta millones de personas, es vecino y también tiene el rol de ser protector de Israel en la región. Por ende cualquier cambio político en este país puede afectar más rápido a otras naciones árabes.
Norte América derrocó al régimen de Saddam Husein declarándolo un dictador, porque no respetaba los derechos humanos, pero en otro lado sigue ayudando a otros regímenes que existen en la región como el caso de Hosni Mubarak. Estados Unidos ayuda económicamente a Egipto y es el segundo país que más recibe ayuda económica después de Israel y antes de Colombia, porque este país es un aliado de Israel, además, tiene intereses energéticos en la zona. Pero ahora, Estados Unidos tiene una gran prueba, en un lado tiene que pensar por su aliado principal en la región que es Israel, para que en Egipto no llegue al poder un líder islamista (de la Hermandad Musulmana), por otra parte sus intereses energéticos o ser el portador de la democracia.
Para muchos en Occidente, los orientales no son capaces de asimilar o vivir en un sistema democrático, a veces culpan al Islam y a veces a la cultura oriental; por eso, algunos países como Estados Unidos no tienen otra opción que llevar la democracia en forma bélica. Estas movilizaciones sociales ahora muestran al mundo que los musulmanes sí quieren vivir en un sistema democrático. Ahora lo que debe hacer Estados Unidos es respetar la decisión del pueblo egipcio y no entrometerse en asuntos internos de este país.
Se está viendo una transformación, una movilización diferente en Oriente Medio. No se ven acciones terroristas por parte de la población civil. El pueblo sólo quiere una verdadera democracia y quiere que sus líderes y las élites del país estén más cercanos y los representen. Porque para muchos, sus líderes y las élites llevan una vida faraónica, es, por eso; que algunas personas ingresaron a un museo del Cairo y lamentablemente saquearon las momias, destruyendo una historia milenaria.
No se sabe Hosni Mubarak hasta cuándo aguantará la presión del pueblo y la opinión internacional. Es muy factible que se quede en el poder unos días más, porque el pueblo hasta que él no se vaya del país no cesará en las protestas. Además el presidente de Estados Unidos pidió una transición en Egipto. La preocupación que tienen Norte América e Israel es el grupo, los Hermanos Musulmanes, pero el líder de la organización anunció que no presentará candidato a las elecciones y apoyará al único probable candidato Muhammad El Baradei (Entre 1997 y 2009 fue el Director General de la Agencia Internacional de Energía Atómica (AIEA). Baradei es un candidato interesante, en su presidencia seguiría respetando los tratados que hay entre Egipto e Israel y traería la democracia al país. Lo único preocupante de Baradei es que muchos años vivió fuera de Egipto y no conoce los problemas internos, ya que este país tiene muchos problemas sociales y económicos.
En resumen, los musulmanes árabes también buscan la democracia y pueden solucionar sus problemas sin inmolaciones y sin actos terroristas. La movilización que se inició en Túnez, Yemen y en especial en Egipto, es muy probable que pase a otros pueblos que son gobernados por dictadores en Oriente Medio. Lo que se espera de las potencias es que respeten la decisión de los pueblos a pesar de sus intereses políticos y económicos.
El mundo ahora es testigo de un cambio histórico que se está dando en Oriente Medio. Las protestas iniciaron el 17 de diciembre de 2010, cuando un joven diplomado y desempleado de 26 años se incendió en un acto de desesperación frente a la alcaldía de la ciudad de Sidi Bouzid, después de que oficiales gubernamentales le confiscaron la carreta de verduras que vendía para ganarse la vida. Rápidamente este joven se convirtió en símbolo de protesta de las frustraciones de los miles de jóvenes tunecinos, que viven en el desempleo y enfrentan un futuro sin esperanzas de mejora. Las movilizaciones espontáneas se gestaron primero en Sidi Bouzid y rápidamente se expandieron a todo el país, sumando las demandas, reformas políticas, denunciando al régimen de Ben Ali, la corrupción de la élite cercana al presidente, la falta de libertades políticas y el control total de los medios. El dictador, Zine Abidine Ben Ali, que estaba en el poder hace veinte tres años tuvo que escapar del país. Estas manifestaciones que se inició en Túnez hizo un efecto dómino en otros países como Yemen y en especial en Egipto.
Pero lo más importante de estas manifestaciones es la de Egipto. Este país a lo largo de la historia tomó el liderazgo del mundo árabe. Fue líder de la ideología panarabista, tiene una población con más de ochenta millones de personas, es vecino y también tiene el rol de ser protector de Israel en la región. Por ende cualquier cambio político en este país puede afectar más rápido a otras naciones árabes.
Norte América derrocó al régimen de Saddam Husein declarándolo un dictador, porque no respetaba los derechos humanos, pero en otro lado sigue ayudando a otros regímenes que existen en la región como el caso de Hosni Mubarak. Estados Unidos ayuda económicamente a Egipto y es el segundo país que más recibe ayuda económica después de Israel y antes de Colombia, porque este país es un aliado de Israel, además, tiene intereses energéticos en la zona. Pero ahora, Estados Unidos tiene una gran prueba, en un lado tiene que pensar por su aliado principal en la región que es Israel, para que en Egipto no llegue al poder un líder islamista (de la Hermandad Musulmana), por otra parte sus intereses energéticos o ser el portador de la democracia.
Para muchos en Occidente, los orientales no son capaces de asimilar o vivir en un sistema democrático, a veces culpan al Islam y a veces a la cultura oriental; por eso, algunos países como Estados Unidos no tienen otra opción que llevar la democracia en forma bélica. Estas movilizaciones sociales ahora muestran al mundo que los musulmanes sí quieren vivir en un sistema democrático. Ahora lo que debe hacer Estados Unidos es respetar la decisión del pueblo egipcio y no entrometerse en asuntos internos de este país.
Se está viendo una transformación, una movilización diferente en Oriente Medio. No se ven acciones terroristas por parte de la población civil. El pueblo sólo quiere una verdadera democracia y quiere que sus líderes y las élites del país estén más cercanos y los representen. Porque para muchos, sus líderes y las élites llevan una vida faraónica, es, por eso; que algunas personas ingresaron a un museo del Cairo y lamentablemente saquearon las momias, destruyendo una historia milenaria.
No se sabe Hosni Mubarak hasta cuándo aguantará la presión del pueblo y la opinión internacional. Es muy factible que se quede en el poder unos días más, porque el pueblo hasta que él no se vaya del país no cesará en las protestas. Además el presidente de Estados Unidos pidió una transición en Egipto. La preocupación que tienen Norte América e Israel es el grupo, los Hermanos Musulmanes, pero el líder de la organización anunció que no presentará candidato a las elecciones y apoyará al único probable candidato Muhammad El Baradei (Entre 1997 y 2009 fue el Director General de la Agencia Internacional de Energía Atómica (AIEA). Baradei es un candidato interesante, en su presidencia seguiría respetando los tratados que hay entre Egipto e Israel y traería la democracia al país. Lo único preocupante de Baradei es que muchos años vivió fuera de Egipto y no conoce los problemas internos, ya que este país tiene muchos problemas sociales y económicos.
En resumen, los musulmanes árabes también buscan la democracia y pueden solucionar sus problemas sin inmolaciones y sin actos terroristas. La movilización que se inició en Túnez, Yemen y en especial en Egipto, es muy probable que pase a otros pueblos que son gobernados por dictadores en Oriente Medio. Lo que se espera de las potencias es que respeten la decisión de los pueblos a pesar de sus intereses políticos y económicos.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)