 |
| 14th of January: in the coastal Tunisian city Of Bizerte |
It has taken me a lot of courage to start writing this
piece and that is for a good reason. In fact, in a previous article[1]
that I have published in “nawaat” I have explored some difficulties associated
with trials at “defining” the Tunisian revolution and at developing a “standard
phraseology” to denote it. An example of the latter is the fact that Tunisians
still disagree about the sheer attribution of a “name” to the revolution, with
differences ranging from “Jasmine revolution” all the way to “dignity
revolution”. In that article I rather took a diplomatic and modest stance by
merely calling for the initiation of a serious effort to create these
definition and phraseology. On this article on the other hand I will explain my
perception about the matter and hopefully participate with a brick in the
building of a better understanding of what has happened in this country since
the deposed president fled.
Let us start with the easiest part in this inquiry and
use a proof-by-the-absurd method. Meaning that first I will examine what the
revolution is indubitably not: The most popular “definition” that I
think ought to be refuted is the cyber revolution claim. Many western and local
commentators have called the events starting from the 17th of
December a Twitter or a Facebook revolution. The very cyber (or for the matter
unreal) nature of these mediums demonstrates that they are not, alone, capable
of encompassing all the aspects of the Tunisian revolution. There are rather
the communication outlet and branch of the revolution: Not the revolution
itself.
Another obvious observation is the weak ideological
motivation of the crowds participating in the protests. The enemy was clear:
RCD, Ben Ali and his clan per say, but the protesters did not have a clear idea
of a precise dogma or established view on government that they fought for.
Instead, the slogans focused on Freedom, social justice and Employment. These
broad Slogans enabled people from various Ideological convictions, with
differences amounting sometimes to enmities, to participate in the revolutionary
effort hand in hand.
A controversial and less mentioned aspect, that I
believe should be addressed nonetheless, is the “popular” involvement in the
revolution. The question here is how popular was the revolution really? Even
though unprecedented popular involvement proved to be a decisive factor, I
believe we can only talk about a limited number or activists. By activists I
mean people who had participated in the revolution not for motives of anger or
moved by reprisal and retaliation for the death of a loved one or so. People
who in fact have participated and organized because of purer belief in the
cause of ousting the repressive regime founded by the president Bourguiba and
consolidated by his successor Ben Ali. Amar Arfaoui is an active participant in
the revolutionary effort of Bizerte. He affirms that the number of protesters in
Bizerte until the 14th of January was actually little. In fact, he
thinks 30 persons was the peak number they managed to gather. The picture on
top this article (Amar arfaoui in green in the center of the image) shows what
is thought to be the largest rally of protesters in Bizerte, a city of
230 000 citizens and yet, even after Ben Ali has fled, one can see that
popular involvement had serious weaknesses in some cases.
These previous points are in no way discrediting the
merit of revolutionaries and activists. I rather mentioned them to show that no
one specific dogma can be applied to the Tunisian revolution and “explain it”.
It does not fit any previous models such as a communist revolution or an
Islamist revolution. Yet, something really big and monumental happened in
Tunisia:
An incredible arrangement of circumstances along with
the heroic courage and bravery of protesters led to what I chose to call an
“epistemological uprising”. Tunisia and the region in general, has been living
on the margins of history for centuries. Meaning that we (as a collective),
have left the sphere of actors in world history and succumbed to decadence or
mere imitation of European powers. In Nietzschian terms, we have seized to be
in the natural process of “becoming” and more or less froze as amazed bewilders
in a culture that is not compatible with our natural development of costumes
and ideas . On the other hand, after the revolution, we have succeeded to
reenter “life” and the very basic struggle for freedom in its widest sense. We
have not accomplished a dogmatic transition from monarchy to republicanism or
from capitalism to socialism. Rather we have opted to have a chance at making
that transition.
The revolution
did change some ontological realities and the biggest of which is the
democratic process in itself and all the freedoms associated with it.
Nevertheless I call it an epistemological uprising because it more importantly changed
the Tunisian individual and communal way of considering the world and gain
knowledge about it: Considering the world as an ongoing “becoming” and viewing
oneself as an active participant in that process are all examples of novel
notions for Tunisians. One can even call it in simple terms: HOPE. For maybe we
have not achieved all the objectives and aspirations of the revolution but one
can dare to hope that we will.
In my Opinion, the Tunisian Revolution is synonymous
for hope and life.
