Islamic Democracy vs. Islamist Democracy

A few weeks ago, on Saturday, May 5, 2012, I met with four members of the Tunisian Constitutional Assembly at a private event in Virginia. The delegation included three top leaders of Ennahda, the majority party in Tunisia, which has modernist Islamic leaning, and a leader of the Block, the party of the Turnisian president, which has socialist, secular leaning. They shared agreement on the identity of the new state as Arab and Muslim (Tunisia is nearly all Sunni Arabic speaking society). But they seemed obsessed with the Bin Ali legacy; two members served more than a decade in prison. The Block party leader is a coalition partner to Ennahada. He was very gracious in sharing the history of his group in offering their podium for Ennahda to express its views during the repressive years of the deposed dictator.

Little did I hear about the greater injustices that Bin Ali committed against the  whole people of Tunisia. Now that the election brought these parties into power, the challenge for the factions is to transform into revolutionary leaders for all Tunisians. This means they have to begin talking about politics with people at the  center of it, whether in the past or in the present or the into the future. Factional narratives of history will inform how each faction behaves and the priorities they place with regards to the  national agenda. Leaders who know what their factions feel without placing those special feelings in the general public's mood are not good national leaders.

The risk of factional narratives is that politics may become reduced into factional rivalries that alienate the vast majority of the  people who made the revolutionary outcomes possible but without committing themselves to factions. The danger implied in the slide to factionalism (whether led by one or a coalition of a few groups) is the possibility of the return to dictatorship or the development of a new form of authoritarianism. General Rachid Bin Ammar did not support his boss not for the sake of the current ruling parties, but to side with the demonstrable will of the masses (which were not chanting the names of any party or group, except the Bin Ali party they wanted out). The Turkish experience shows that generals are tempted to step into politics in the name of solving crises, when parties are engaged in infighting and the public is unhappy. Thus de-factionalizing politics by empowering people in Tunisia is in the interest of building democracy. Another alternative is the authoritarianism of factions, which may result from the inability or unwillingness to follow the natural course of the people power revolution by creating a system based on checks and balances that prevent any segment, institution or faction from excercising hegemony over the political system. In other words, current political leaders and the people who brought them to power can only ensure the ability to develop people centered narratives and political solutions by sharing power not only amongst the national elite but also with people in their localities, clubs, schools, and streets. This would force political leaders to begin referring to political memories that the general has experienced. This is the best assurance for democratic transformation. 

Is al-Nahdha Succeeding or Failing the Salafi Test?

The clashes between the Salafis and Tunisian security forces in Jendoubah http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18222810 may be seen in the West as an evidence that Ennahda government is willing to face off elements who operate outside the law. This is a premature conclusion as we are not sure that the security forces are under the control of the ruling party. Remember that this is a party that came to form a government after the Constitutional Assembly's election last year. The ancient regime's apparatus, particularly the security sector, is still largely unchanged. But the clashes imply clearer noteworthy indications:
1. While the Salafis are attempting to prove that they are more Islamic than the ruling Islamist party, Ennahda is trying to show those outside Islamic camps that it is more moderate than the Salafis and more committed to the rule of law. I am afraid that if the transition to democracy does not go well and if economic opportunity in Sidi Bouzid, where the attacks on liquor shops started, do not improve, no amount of state coercion will end the current conflict, which feeds on economic frustration. More importantly, what is lost here is a proper discussion and treatment of the roots of the problem.
2. Resorting to the coercive power of the state to settle what is essentially a cultue war over what the Islamic injunction against alcohol means for the state is not the appropriate long-term answer. Ennahda Minister of Interior spoke about the rule of law after violent attacks aimed for shut down the legal sale of alcohol. But the education and civic dialogue responses have been extremely lacking. The Salafis are ideological opponents. Their arguments have to be defeated.
3. Coercion alone will be self-defeating so long as the Salafi leaders can convince their supporters that the struggle now is between those who want Islamic law (the Salafis) and those who want power (Ennahda). This comes at a time when the ruling party has not even begun the work of dismantling the ancient regime. The majority party should remember that it came to a position of authority through a popular mass movement beyond Islamist ranks. If the political process now moves into a showdown between the various Islamist camps, which would alienate the vast majority of Tunisians, a coup is possible. This is one of the core lessons of the Turkish pre-2002 model of military-political relations.
4. A challenge to democracy should be treated with more democracy. Religious scholars agree that the consumption and sale of alcohol by Muslims is prohibited by Islamic law. Most Tunisians do not consume alcohol, but they cannot impost a ban on non-Muslims, including the millions of tourists who come to the country. More, there is no consensus among scholars that the state should be the agency to enforce that article of Islamic law, but the  state should enforce law and order. No individual or group should take law enforcement into their own hands, let alone force their views on religion and state.
5. The Tunisian Revolution started as a local protest in Sidi Bouzid, where the current problem also began. The government has the power to pass laws allowing localities to establish their own rule on the sale of alcohol. This is what many governments around the world do. Thus empowering the people of Sidi Bouzid to make a public decision about the issue is the appropriate way of handling the problem.
6. The  Salafis are likely to go along with this proposal. They have just launched their own political party; therefore, they have interest in staying within the mainstream. Giving them a window of opportunity locally may keep them busy winning hearts and minds than debating whether to support violence against alcohol stores or security forces. If they are able to convince Sidi Bouzid local government to ban the sale of alcohol, the police should enforce the law. The factionalization of politics threatens democratic transition in Tunisia if politics becomes reduced to the ability of the national political majority to impose its will over all issues and all other forces in society. The  Tunisians are learning that a people power revolution can devise people-centered solutions to political crises, but only if enlightened leaders control their factional interests in the pursuit of the greater good.

Can the Arabs Produce the World's First True Democracy?

One can argue that an intrinsic democratic polity, or true democracy, takes place when people collectively exercise power. This is exactly what Arab peoples have been doing since December 17, 2010. But the people will transorm their states into true democracies when they complete their power grab and peacefully hold onto power. It will be time before we know whether this will be the fate of the Arab Spring. Let's hope it will turn out this way.

Most revolutions in the world took the form of armed rebellion. In most cases the regime was a foreign occupying force. So the Arab Spring belongs to the small number of cases in which people revolt against their own rulers. But Arab revolutions are even more unique in world history.

The revolts were triggered by the Bouazizi act of self-immolation,which runs against Muslim custom. The incident shocked people into action. They read it as a protest against a general condition of political oppression. Bouazizi's town members went to demonstrate at government buildings; this was met by a security crackdown that left more injuries, sparking a spontaneous uprising that spread from town to town. In three weeks it reached the capital and once the Bin Alis left the country, the spirit of "can do" spread in the Arab world. Three dictators are out; one regime has been completely wiped out--thanks in part to NATO; constitutions have changed or being debated, and in every Arab country there have been some significant impact. At the very least, one could say without doubt that Arab political culture is transforming; there is a collectiv people consciousness that will not accept political alienation--which most Arabs have tolerated for so long. One can appreciate this point by comparing the ongoing events in the Arab world to othe revolutions.

The Glorious Revolution in England in 1688 started by action of Protestant politicians against their own king. The French Revolution involved the grassroots but the main action began when the Bourgeoise of the Third Estate, part of the ruling elite, revolted against the nobility and the priests. The revolution ende fuedalism, empowered the parliament and gave rights to people. However, unlike Arab revolts, it did not start from people who were completely marginalized. The American Revolution was triggered by state level action when the leaders of the new colonies saw Britain as a foreign entity and wanted to separate from it.

In the Carribean, the Cuban Revolution was an armed rebellion that failed two times before coming to power. In the Eastern side of the globe, the Bolshevik October Revolution started with ideas then turned into an armed rebellion. So did the Communist Chinese Revolution.

The anti-Communist revolutions of 1989 in Eastern Euroe were triggered by a world event: the collapse of the Soviet Union in the wake of its defeat in Afghanistan. The movement began in Poland, where an organized labor union was leading the call for change. In several Eastern European countries the old communist regime leaders morphed into some form of social democrats and for the most part remained in power.

Closer to the Arab world, the Iranian Revolution stands out. Millions of Iranians took part in it, which like the Arab Spring began in the form of peaceful protest. But unlike the Arab Spring movements, the Iranian revolt followed a well stated plan of action published in 1969 by the leader of the revolution, Khomeini, in his book Velayeti Fagih. Young Mullahs began immediately mobilizing and their networks were in place to bring out masses of people; the violent reaction of the Shah led to awful bloodshed but ended with a total regime change in less than one year.

Despite all the traditions of democracy in the world and although democracy is about people empowering themselves by ruling themselves, the world is yet to witness a true democratic rule.

Western democracies are dominated by corporate interest, notwithstanding Scandinavian exceptions that value direct democracy measures; Israel promotes itself as an oasis of democracy in the Middle East, but this is a country where the center of power gravitates to Ashkenazi business and military leaders. India has a reputation of being the world's larges democracy, because the military has stayed out of politics and the country has the largest number of voters. But India is yet to complete dismantling its discriminatory caste system, which completely disenfranchises hundreds of millions of citizens.

Can the Arabs offer the world the first political systems where no tribe, company, party, social or regligious leaders group, or military general dominate? Yes they can, if they believe and work for it. Rachid Al-Ghannouchi, thinker and founder of the Tunisian Ennahda Party, which received a plurality of votes a few weeks ago, believes such system would pass much of state power to local governing bodies that are close to the needs of the citizens.

Will the national power regime in Tunisia, i.e., the political networks that developed since the creation of the post-colonia state, allow Tunisians to achieve Al-Ghannouchi vision? Will Egyptians who have had an ancient political history of strong central government go for bottom-up people power democracy? Only the continued public engagement of ordinary Arabs and youth groups can raise the likelihood of this happening. If it does, the Arab peoples will have reentered history with a big splash that might cause political Tsunamis across the world.

Arab Pro-Democracy Revolution Gains and Challenges

Tunisia:
The military turned against the autocratic, corrupt president under pressure from the public. The first interim government was also forced out under pressure from demonstraters. Now it seems "the regime" is much bigger than Ben Ali. An old figure who had served as First Minister under the mentor of Ben Ali was called for service. The agency of political police is dissolved The main task is to set up a constitutional convention.

Egypt:
Mubarak is out; so are the VP and the last government he appointed. The new prime minister was a non-corrupt old minister who participated in Tahrir Square demonstrations. The State Security Investigation Agency has been replaced by the National Security Agency. Both chambers of parliament have been dismissed. The old constitution is being amended.

Libya:
The peaceful demonstrations that began on February 17 in Benghazi turned into an armed rebellion as Qaddafi pulled out his militias from towns in the East. The rebels formed the Libyan National Provisional Council, headed by the former Minister of Justice. Qaddafi and his senior military officer called their opponents "rats," the term Italian colonial leaders used to describe Libyan resistance leaders. The Qaddafi regime is using military assets, including top of the line planes, tanks and military vehicles, against the poorly armed rebels. Al-Zawiyah, the nearest town to the capital, came under heavy fire. In Tripoli and other places heavy guns were used against any opposition gatherings. The international community turned against the regime; so did a good chunck of Libya's diplomats who cannot be controlled by Qaddafi. Now Western power along with the Arab League and some Arab governments will participate in enforcing a No-Fly Zone in Libya and will attack Qaddafi assets.

Yeman:
Demonstrations are gainining momentum, while the Saleh regime is losing ground. Many of his allies, including tribal leaders, ministers, party leaders, and even state security and military leaders have defected to the opposition. The regime is now using lethal force against demonstrators in Change Square outside Sanaa University. But the violent treatment of protesters is reported everywhere. North and South Yemen may emerge truly unified after this because now both sides share one experience: removing the corrupt Saleh regime.

Bahrain:
In anticipation of a move by the restless opposition the king offered each Bahraini family $2,600, a move that backfired. The ruling family was caught by surprise with the breadth of the opposition. The opposition calls for reforming the regime and seek a constitutional monarchy. There has been a test of wills. The ruling family, which is Sunni, accuses the opposition, which, like the population, is largely Shia, of being sectarian. But the ruling family has mobilized its supporters, who are largely Sunni, to also take to the streets in support of the king. The hypocricy was not well received and demonstrators continued to come. The ruling family has called for help from its allies in the Gulf. Pinensula Shield Forces from Saudi Arabia and the UAE were deployed to protect the regime. The dialogue has not even begun.

Iraq:
Anti-government demonstrators are taking to the streets in large numbers in all governorates, except two Kurdish regions. People criticize the government for failing to provide services and jobs. People charge the government with corruption and ask "where is the oil money?" In certain instances security forces used live bullets to hold off protesters. Iraq has a freely elected government, but al-Maliki managed to break away from his Da'wa Party to form a new political block that won a substantial number of seats in the parliament. Many people charge him with diverting state funds to buy off political support.

Jordan:
Demonstrations that used to call for limited sociopolitical changes in government policy before January 14, 2011, the day of Ben Ali's departure, are now calling for reforming the regime. King Abdullah II met with opposition leaders for the first time since he came to power. He also dismissed the government and appointed a new one to conduct dialogue with the opposition. Opposition leaders refuse to participate, demanding to talk to the king or his personal appointee.

Morocco:
Following demonstrations in Rabat, King Muhammad VI announced sweeping changes in the political system to take place in three months.

Algeria:
State of Emergency has been lifted by the parliament. The ruling coalition is breaking apart, with the HIMS, the Algerian Muslim Brotherhood branch, calling the regime corrupt and demanding sweeping changes in the political system.

Oman:
Demonstrations broke out in Suhar region. Sultan Qabus responded by offering unemployment money, salary increases, 50,000 new jobs, and the establishment of a committee to study increasing the political powers of the Shura Council.

Saudi Arabia:
After severe rains that flooded the streets of Jeddah, demonstrators took to the street calling for better government services. Eastern Region's demonstrations have been suppressed by the police (the region is heavily populated by Shia Muslims). The Council of Senior Scholars issued a fatwa prohibiting demonstrations. King Abdullah has just given a speech on Friday March 18, 2011, offering the equivalent of a two-month salary payment to government employees and a two-month stipend for public university students. He also ordered $532 for every unemployed person and the establishment of a council to combat corruption. He praised the pro-government religious scholars and the security forces.

United Arab Emirates:
On March 9, 2011, a petition was signed by 133 Emirati nationals including academics, journalists and rights activists calling for direct elections. The UAE, which consists of seven emirates including Abu Dhabi and Dubai, had indirect elections in 2006 for the first time.The petition said that "changes in the region" inspired them to call for widening the margin of freedoms.

Palestinian Territories:
Immediately following the departure of Mubarak, the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah pushed for a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement policy. Although the resolution used language that the Obama Administration had supported previously, the American representative was instructed to veto the resolution. On March 14, Palestinian youths held demonstrations in Ramallah and on March 15 various factions in Gaza held demonstrations calling for ending the split between Gaza and the West Bank. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said he would be willing to go to Gaza to end the split, form a national unity interim government to prepare for elections.

Syria:
Facebook activism is growing but so is government monitoring of it. In one incident of a call to Day of Rage, the regime blanketed street corners in Damascus with the pictures of Bashar and Hafiz al-Assad. Some people are writing calls for change on walls. Regime operatives immediately white-wash them. Small demonstrations have taken place in Damascus; one in front of the Interior Ministry called for the release of three protesters arrested the previous day at Hamidiyah Market demonstration. Walid al-Muallim, Foreign Minister, said reform is coming from within the regime this year. But no other initiative was announced; nor did the regime try to reach out to opposition groups. Today, Friday March 18, 2011, witnessed the largest demonstrations ever. Thousands of people streamed out of mosques in different parts of the country, including Damascus, Hims, Banyas, and Dir'a. Al-Jazeera showed footage taken by protesters; participants called for political reform. At the historic Umayyad mosque security forces in plain clothes flooded the mosque in anticipation of the demonstrations (they learned about it from facebook). After the prayers, they closed the mosque to prevent demonstrators from taking to the streets. Two demonstrators were reportedly arrested.
Lebanon:
A new youth coalion of a few thousand members has taken to the street to demand an end to sectarian politics.

"We are Citizens not Subjects"

Syrians seem to be having a difficult time coming up with their own version of the Arab Spring of 2011. The regime has well-staffed security agencies and a sectarian social support base that will support the regime to the end. The country had a history of political violence and extreme suppression. But it has been nearly 30 years since a band of radical Muslim Brother rose up in arms against the regime, which responded by bombing old Hamah in 1982, killing thousands and sending many more to flee their country. Most Syrians today and younger than 30; that episode does not define their worldviews. Plus, the regime was repressive before and after that event.

Young Syrians and meeting on Facebook. Many announced February 5, 2011 as their Day of Rage . Witnesses say security forces blanketed the streets of Damascus with pictures of Bashar and Hafiz al-Assad. The scare tactic worked and massive demonstrations were aborted. In remote areas like Dir'a near the border with Jordan, people wrote on walls in the cover the of the dark the familiar chant of the Arab People Power Revolution of 2011, "the people want to depose the regime!" So there is evidence of restlessness.

In one random incident circulating among people throughout the region, a pedestrian challenged verbal abuse from a traffic police officer who call the man an "ass." The man suprised him by coming back to him demanding an apology for mistreating a citizen. In a matter of minutes, the confrontation turned into a demonstration of a few thousand civilians coming to the aid of the man facing off a score of security officers. A large force from the Interior Ministry dispersed the crowd but the Interior Minister apologized publicly for the incident--perhaps a first in modern Syrian history. The story cannot be confirmed but it underscores the growing feeling of empowerment and appreciation to the rights of citizenship among Arabs.

In the last few days, al-Jazeera reported (with some amature footage) that tens of young, upper middle class youths from different sects and genders took to the street in the famous Hamidiyah Market. Two men and one woman were arrested. The following day their relatives and friends went to the Interior Ministry to demand a meeting with the minister and to inquire about the whereabouts of the arrested demonstrators. Their gathering turned into a demonstration in front of the ministry building. They were told that a meeting with the minister requires an application process that takes time. But what they gained is to train the regime and its functionaries that people are taking to the streets peacefully and are willing to meet and talk.

Walid Al-Muallim, the Foreign Minister of Syria, said that change is coming this year. Suhair al-Atasi, a Syrian human rights advocate, said all these incidents are spontaneous, stemming from the growing sentiment among people that they want to be treated as citizens, not subjects. This is another indication of the cultural transformation in the Arab world. Change is coming to Syria. Let's hope it will be as peaceful as it has been thus far in Tunisia and Egypt.

Tomorrow, March 18, 2011, has been dubbed by Syrian new media activists as the Friday of Dignity. It is fair to predict that more people will come out asking politely and firmly for rights they know belong to them but which they have been denied for so long.

U.S. Congress Hearing Turns into Islamophbia Fest

I watched today’s Peter King hearing on “the extent of radicalization in the American Muslim community” held by the House Committee on Homeland Security which he chairs. The congressman deserves some credit: he did not call only his allies and there were two stories of radicalization told by two witnesses. Congressman King even allowed two democratic colleagues to testify on the damaging effects of the hearing. Keith Ellison wept as he recalled the story of a Muslim 9/11 myrter: First Responder Muhammad Hamdani who gave his life to save innocent people, only to be later suspected of terrorism because of his Muslim faith.

Two witnesses, a Somali American relative to two young men who went to Somalia to fight for the extremist groups Al-Shabab and an African American father to a young Muslim convert who also went overseas for radical Muslim causes, talked very briefly about their encounter with radicalization. Shockingly, there were only a couple of probing questions by members of the committee about the details of the stories or the Muslim leaders and organizations involved or became aware of the incidents. And I did not get the feeling that members of the committee were interested in exploring what the two incidents meant for measuring the extent of radicalism among American Muslims or what the information means for government counterterrorism policy—which is the declared objective of the hearing.

Several members used the incidents as a proof, a smoking gun, that justified throwing in the names of objectionable Muslim groups (e.g., CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas) even though they were not involved in the incidents and whose mention was connected to learning from the serious radicalization stories that the committee just learned. Thus we had a vivid demonstration of how the politics of Islamophobia mix: It is about projecting fear-provoking Muslim things together for an audience that is supposed to only make a decision where their emotions and loyalties are—regardless of the facts.

Los Angeles County Sherrif Leroy Baca testified that he was pleased with his relationship with the Muslim community. When in a response to a question he affirmed that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)-LA cooperates with his department on counter-terrorism, a republican member of Congress turned against Baca in an attempt to bring him back in line with the anti-CAIR message that King opened with. CAIR-National had been publicizing a statement he allegedly made about the presence of too many mosques in America.

We also learned in this hearing about the extent of the strict secularism of Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim physician with ideas about contemporary Muslim political thought. He was given much of the witness speaking time. We learned about the actors in Muslim world politics (even beyond America) that he dislikes. He definitely opposes the Muslim Brothers, including those who are willing to play by democratic rules. But Obama does not object to their participation in government and Bush had successfully courted them in Iraq in the effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power. In Tunisia their Ennahda party has been legalized. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is establishing a new political party calling for a civil state and accepting members regardless of faith.

But a discussion of this nature does not fit in the work of a committee that is paid by taxpayers to watch government performance in homeland security. This is not to say that such discussion should not to be had in the halls of Congress. I set up educational panels in congressional meeting rooms on American Muslims; the functions were open to members of Congress and their staff. But these events were not part of a government sponsored investigation.

The politics of Islamophobia and resistance to it were balanced in quantity and passion. Some members of the committee dropped in talking points about Sharia creep in the United States, a popular talking point on Fox News, while others complained that despite the religious affiliation of the KKK and its terrorism in America over a century, Congress never held a hearing on their ideology. But the real loser of today's hearing is the tax payer whose government did not gain any new ground in combatting terrorism.

Qaddafis Pursuing their Narrative

Qaddafi is now giving a talk during his 34th annual celebration of people power rule. He said what his son Saif al-Islam had warned against has come true. His son had said that foreign companies would leave, Libya would divide, and a civil war would engulf Libya. Qaddafi said the outside world is misinformed about what is going on in his country and have fallen victim to international media outlets that hated Qaddafi and powers that have their eyes on Libyan oil.

He said that pursuing his concept of people rule the state's security brigades have been training people in different parts of Libya on the use of arms to help them defend themselves in case of a foreign invasion. What happened after the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt was that some former Guantanamo detainees and supporters in towns in the East ganged up and attacked security installations and stole weapons. The Qaddafi regime ordered his local security forces to pull out rather than spill Libyan blood. But in the initial confrontation tens of people were killed from both sides. The residents seen demonstrating in streets were relatives of those killed from both sides protesting this resort to violence.

Qaddafi denied that there is massive rejection of his rule and blamed the armed rebels for terrorizing the civilians in the towns that fell to rebel hands. Again, he stressed that his forces do not wish to fight and have not begun to push back. But now that the rebels are spreading chaos in the country, he will have to fight back. He said that his fight will be legitimate since he will be fighting against the possibility of establishing a terrorist al-Qaida rule in Libya.

Why would a regime in power just choose to surrender to small bands of rebels in each town? Al-Qaddafi's explanation is that these rebels are people too and that he empowered them because his revolution was meant to bring power to the people. But now terrorists have exploited this state of affair.

The opposition says that the revolt began with civilians taking to the streets to demonstrate peacefully. They were met with the violence of members of the security brigades (or those among them who were loyal to Qaddafi's rule). People then went against the security installations and overpowered the remnants of the Qaddafi regime in their towns.

It would be interesting to see if the opposition now restores the civilian image of the revolution by calling for a massive show of civilian will in all the towns liberated from the regime of the Qaddafi family. Otherwise, there will be room for cynicism about the nature of what is going on in Libya. Is it a rebellion by tribesmen who think they haven't had equal share of the oil wealth? Were the confrontations around the security installations staged by the secret agents of Qaddafi himself to create the ongoing dynamic as a way to head off a massive peaceful call for change? Or may be we are witnessing a unique case of regime change in Libya, where tribal forces and modern societal formations have not been able to mesh cohesively yet to demonstrate to the world how trivial their dictator is.

The Qaddafis want the world to think that the Libya is now in the middle of a civil war and they have the right to defend themselves and restore order. But the Qaddafis seem increasingly isolated and dellusional. The Colonel denies that he is in charge, but only his son is coming forward to vouch for the regime. The Qaddafis may still have supporters and assets. Their relatives alone can put up some fight, but those in the outer circles of support will increasingly reach a conclusion that the days of the regime are numbered and they better switch sides before it is too late. These elements will be more convinced if they see the outpouring civilian support for a peaceful change. Will the opposition be able to prove that Qaddafi is isolated by the people of Libya? In the next few days, this is going to be main task of the revolution. But again, this revolt does not seem to be as organized as its Tunisian or Egyptian counterpart.