Afriend of mine, Mandavi Mehta,who was also my supervisor at athinktank in the US, once turned tome and remarked, “You know, thiswhole international relationsstream is a bit bogus. The key dis-

cipline is history.” Of course, she was overstat-ing the case to make her point, but over time Ihave come to realise how right she was. Muchof the analysis that we do in the disciplines ofpolitical science, conflict resolution, and the restis based on our knowledge and assessment ofhistorical antecedents.

I would like to emphasise this point becauseit allows us to ask two distinct questions aboutthe spate of protests that currently seem to spanthe world. The first question is: what is the spe-cific history, the specific conditions, in the coun-try where these protests are taking place? InTunisia, a vegetable seller protested his humili-ation — a slap by a policewoman — by immo-lating himself. In the Tibetan majority areas ofChina, 12 monks and nuns have attempted self-immolation this year in protest against the re-pression they faced. Most of them died or werebrutally treated by the security forces if they sur-vived. The Tunisian government fell, and dem-ocratic elections just took place, while in Chinathe Communist Party seems very firmly in con-trol. Observing these differences in outcomes al-lows us to make a commonsensical observation:China is not Tunisia. No two countries, not evenif the form of protest, and the reasons for it,seems very similar, are the same.

MISLEADING COMPARISONSIt is dangerous to treat all the current protestorsas the same. By doing so, we do them an injus-tice, and also run the risk of thinking that theyall needed to be treated the same. Even in coun-tries with cultures as similar, and geographical-ly as close, as Egypt and Bahrain, the differenceswere enormous. In Egypt, an embattled militarydictator made a string of miscalculations whichleft not only him, but his second in command,out of a job. Neither the US, nor Israel nor SaudiArabia could do much to control events. InBahrain, though, a very different story unfolded.The small, and non-violent group of protestorswere attacked by the security forces, accused ofbeing tools of Iran, and then crushed throughnaked force as Saudi Arabia sent its tanks rollingin to support the regime. And the UK then invit-ed Bahrain to its largest arms fair.

There is also the deeper question of what theprotests are about. The groups in New York Cityprotesting about the fact that the financial in-dustry has destroyed the wealth of millionsand gone unpunished cannot be compared tothe Egyptians who faced tear gas and battledagainst heavily armed police in armoured vehi-cles. What happened in Tahrir Square was a fightagainst an authoritarian, violent, corrupt and re-pressive regime. We may consider other causesto also be noble — let’s say the anti-corruptioncampaign in India — but to speak about “our ownTahrir Square” in such radically different situa-tions is ridiculous. It may make for a good slo-gan, but like many other political slogans, it ob-scures more than it reveals.

LESSONS FROM HISTORYWhile the first lesson of history must be cautionand a search for context, the second lesson is oneof hope, even if it is cautious hope. There havebeen historical occurrences that spanned theglobe, even if they affected different regions dif-ferently. The two most important ones in the re-cent past have been the process of decolonisa-tion, and the end of the two hostile camps cre-ated during the Cold War. In both cases humanfreedom, the liberty of individuals to be treatedat par with others, increased. Authoritarian

regimes, supported from afar by people whowere not responsible for the crimes they com-mitted in the name of ‘civilisation’, crumbled be-fore the empowerment of those that had beenrepressed. Within these changes were hiddensmaller changes, such as the challenge againstinstitutionalised racism in South Africa and theUS, the victory for many women who had notbeen given the right to vote, to become equal inthat respect with their male counterparts.

It is tempting to read this long history as a his-tory of human freedom, and there is a precedentfor it. The idea of Just War — the conditions inwhich a war can be justified, and how soldiersmust behave in wartime — can be traced as a po-litical idea as far back as the Greek philosopherPlato, 2,500 years ago. Over time, this idea wasbuilt on and refined by Christian theologianssuch as Augustine of Hippo (4th century) andThomas Aquinas (13th century). Over time theseideas became globalised and refined until theycongealed in the United Nations — conceived asthe ultimate way to avoid any except the most

unavoidable wars — and the Geneva Conven-tions which guarantee the conditions underwhich prisoners of war can be treated. Over twoand half millennia, humanity has engaged in anextended conversation on what human rightsare all about, and the fact that we have a Uni-versal Declaration of Human Rights is a prod-uct of that long conversation. Even if these rulesare violated, whether by the United States inGuantanamo Bay or by Muammar Gaddafi in hisbrutal and failed attempt to crush the Libyan up-rising, the fact that they exist allows us to speakin terms of a global ethics of right and wrong.

Similarly it may be that we are in the midstof a long conversation about political and eco-nomic liberty. The protests that we see — as var-ied in their composition as they are in their de-mands — all address the issue of who controlswhom, and at what cost? These are the basicquestions of human liberty. Can an authoritari-an dictatorship rig elections and manipulate theeconomy to benefit a small coterie of benefici-aries? The answer seems, “No,” whether that isin the Middle East or — with the sudden protestswe are seeing — in Russia. Can a small group ofpolitically or economically important individu-als be so vital to the nation that they are “too bigto fail”, above oversight, with their crimes andmistakes endlessly compensated by taxpayer

money? Again the answer seems to be, “No”,whether in Delhi, Tel Aviv or New York.

The deeper question to all of this is, “Whorules?” And the answer which had been, “We do”,by a set of entrenched elite is being challengedby mobilised citizens, saying, “Not without ourpermission.” In August this year I attended theinstallation ceremony of Dr Lobsang Sangay, theHead of the Tibetan exile administration. After-ward, speaking to a small group of us the DalaiLama expressed his relief at being able to finallyhand over all his political duties to an elected rep-resentative. Making the point that the time forkings and religious leaders to play political roleswas long over, he went one step further, com-menting that at times political parties — the en-trenched elite — sometimes forgot that they donot own the country, the people do. Ultimately,all political leaders are answerable to the citizensof a country and to them alone.

In the faces, demands and slogans of the var-ious protests that are taking place around theworld, it seems that this very statement is beingreiterated. We should listen.

Omair Ahmad is the author of Jimmy the Ter-rorist and The Storyteller’s Tale. He works on

human rights issues in South Asia with theFriedrich Naumann Foundation.

Omair AhmedAuthor

CITIZENS UNITEDAGAINST THERULING ELITE

The protests that we see around the world —

as varied in theircomposition as they are intheir demands — all seem

to address the issue ofwho controls whom, and

at what cost, writesOmair Ahmad

Protesters march during an Occupy Torontodemonstration in Canada. On October 15,

2011, OWS portests spread to Canada, EuropeAustralia, Asia and Africa —Bloomberg

OVER TWOAND A HALF MILLENNIA,HUMANITYHAS ENGAGEDIN AN EXTENDED DIALOGUE ONWHAT HUMANRIGHTS AREALL ABOUT

In his 1969 book The Agony Of The Amer-ican Left, historian and social criticChristopher Lasch argued that to turn itsvision of a new society into reality, the

popular New Left of the 1960s would needto begin functioning “not as a protest move-ment or a third party but as an alternativepolitical system.”

Now, 42 years later, armed with ourknowledge of the New Left’s failure and hav-ing witnessed the rise of the global Occupymovement, it is worth reconsidering Lasch’sclaim. More specifically, any evaluation ofthe OWS movement’s potential for catalysing“soft regime change” in the US should be-gin by considering whether it can function

as an alternative political system. As Arund-hati Roy has argued, those operating withinthe current political system — itself respon-sible for the crisis — “will not be the onesthat come up with a solution.” Does the so-lution truly lie with the OWS movement?

On this issue, the American public appearsdecidedly undecided. In late October, aCBS/New York Times poll reported that two-thirds of the public agreed with the state-ment that “wealth in this country should bemore evenly distributed.” Nearly one monthlater, however, a USA Today/Gallup poll re-ported that 53% of Americans considerthemselves neither supporters nor oppo-nents of the Occupy movement. These seem-ingly contradictory findings suggest that themovement has so far failed to make a convincing argument or to bring public opinion in line with its goals, whatever theymay be.

As a proud participant in the animal rightsmovement, I am not surprised by OWS’ in-ability to make a convincing case. The ani-mal rights movement worked hard to makeits goals both identifiable and achievable. Wewanted to curtail the sale of fur, so weprotested outside fur stores until their doorsclosed for good. We focused the public’s at-tention on cruel cat labs at major universi-ties until those labs switched to more so-phisticated and humane non-animal alter-natives. We worked with industry to banholding crates for pigs on factory farms.

By contrast, it remains difficult to form aclear understanding of the OWS movement’sgoals. The impression is that they have none.

Occupy movements seem to be islands ofpassionately discontented people floatingabout on the open sea, with no direction,leadership or clear targets. However, pollssuggest public support for meaningful re-form, and the Occupy movement — unlikethe now defunct Tea Party — has some po-tential for instigating such reforms. An Oc-tober National Journal poll reports that 60%of the public expresses agreement with theOWS sentiment that financial institutionsshould see greater government regulation.Similarly, numerous polls have demonstrat-ed widespread public support for an effortto overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling in theCitizens United case because it allows for un-

due corporate influence on the politicalprocess. These findings demonstrate thewidespread public opinion that political or-ganisations have been sapped of their dem-ocratic potential as wealth inequality has in-creased and as the economic elite has cometo dictate political outcomes. It is here, there-fore, that we see the most fertile ground forOccupy-inspired reform.

It is also on this point — the need for re-newed and reinvigorated democraticprocesses themselves — that ChristopherLasch’s argument reemerges. One guidingprinciple of the OWS movement has been itscommitment to a decision-making processin which action is taken only after unani-

mous vote. It is commendable that the move-ment puts into practice the change that ithopes to achieve by devoting itself to trulydemocratic principles.

At the same time, crises that emerge in thecontemporary social and economic envi-ronment often require the prompt decisionsof a small group of elected officials. Here, themovement’s insistence on unanimity ap-pears both nostalgic and unsuited for our era.In other words, it has offered an “alterna-tive political system” but one that has nochance of winning widespread support froma public that seeks democratic renewal butstill worries about a terrorist attack or a fi-nancial crisis. As long as the movement failsto come to terms with this reality, it has verylittle chance of garnering the public supportnecessary to inspire meaningful reform.

The political system in the US is famous-ly and intentionally resistant to change andhas frustrated the reform hopes of manypopular movements. Yet the lingering ef-fects of the 2008 financial crisis have laidbare certain facts about our current condi-tion — most notably wealth and political in-come inequality — which strike large ma-jorities as fundamentally un-American. Aslong as this remains true, and the OWSmovement fails to spell out clear goals foruprooting the current political and eco-nomic system, OWS protesters will findthemselves in a fair fight against the statusquo bias of these institutions.

Jabeen Akhtar is a Washington-based Pakistani-American novelist, and author of

Welcome To Americastan

Jabeen AkhtarAuthor

Too pre-Occupied to bring about change?The Occupy movements

in the US seem to beislands of passionately

discontented peoplefloating about on the open

sea, with no direction,leadership or clear targets,

writes Jabeen Akhtar

Blo

om

be

rg

14MUMBAI January 1, 2012

sundaysunday

Russian Revolutionn 1905, Imperial Guards gunned down people partici-pating in a peaceful rally petitioning Tsar Nicholas II.This event shook people’s confidence in the Tsar. Yearslater, the Tsar’s decision to enter World War I led to mas-sive food shortages in cities. Trade routes were affected,leading to widespread discontent. In February 1917,members of the parliament or Duma assumed controlof the country forcing the Tsar to abdicate. In October,Vladimir Lenin of the Bolshevik Party, set off anotherrevolution in Petrograd.

i

Age of Discontent