Sorry, Samira, but there’s no evidence to suggest that this was a revolution of weak ties. Though it’s certainly possible that Facebook (or Twitter) was used to organize, there was no widespread use of either tool for large-scale organizing (though as I noted on my own blog, technology surely plays a part via SMS, e-mail, instant messaging, etc), and a number of Tunisians have stated that the majority of protesters were likely unaware of the online mobilization.

Nevertheless, we can all see that social media certainly helped in disseminating information to folks outside the country, including to the media (perhaps in a more reliable and controlled manner than during the Iran protests of 2009), and that more of the world (and most of the Arab world, which certainly benefited from Al Jazeera’s excellent coverage) turning its attention to Tunisia was a good thing.

but I am not responsible for people who are unable to read and understand but just feel the need to open their mouths before opening their eirs…

Tour comments are never worth answering with all the insults you use

But before answering with a detailed piece on the role of Internet compared to the role of brave ground struggling Tunisian (may all the martyrs rest in peace )

I can have for you this short answer : you are so intelligent, outstanding brilliant to think that BenAli was thrown by non-connected-to-the-ground-ivory-digital-activists

Ask Lina Benmhenni, the brave girl who dared reporting from the ground, and compare to your “fight for freedom in morocco” through blog “intelligent” and respectful comments.

one day you will learn how to comment without childy insults.

Best regards.

Tunisians shredded his stupid theory to bits and pieces.

In the USA’s case, an amendment seems necessary (but it may not be sufficient) to ensure gays are not discriminated against. Homosexual relations are today legal in all states. Granted, it was legal trickery to resort to the 14th amendment in Lawrence v. Texas, but it got the job done. As for the issue of same-sex “marriage”, it should be tackled by pushing for civil unions.

In the case of Morocco, we have to start from the ground up: Freedom of speech. Without that, religion can’t be pushed to the side like it was done in so many countries (and so long ago). If we ain’t even have the right to talk about change, what the fuck we got?

I’m confused by your points. Though I must state that I agree in keeping Islam out of politics (as well as Christianity and Judaism, though I do recognize the difference), your views on how democracy in Morocco should work aren’t clear to me, namely because of your simultaneous condemnation of Baathism, etc (assuming I’ve read you correctly).

Unlike Eatbees, I don’t subscribe to the “democracy at any cost” paradigm. Let me use an example from my own culture, since I’m more qualified to comment (and please, recognize that this is for the sake of example, not comparison). My fellow countrymen have repeatedly fought against freedoms for gay citizens, on the basis of “traditional” (read: Christian) family values. I’m tired of it, and want a system devoid of religion. I don’t feel the need to cater whatsoever to religious views that infringe upon the freedoms of others.

Of course, I recognize that my views are only partly formed and somewhat unrealistic…so Samira, as someone who has undoubtedly thought about this a lot more than I have, and in the Moroccan context, what is the solution in your view?

Well…there’s a huge difference between being supportive of Islamists and supporting the Islamists’ right to speak in public and run for office. Why do you think anyone would interpret the first as the second is beyond me. This is almost exactly the way Tareq Ramadan works his double-speak magic (I’ve had the displeasure of meeting the man in a reception, and he’s even less convincing in person).

Anyway, this is called TalkMorocco and not TalkTunisia or TalkTurkey. And you know damn well that Islamists can say whatever the hell they want. It is the anti-Islamists who can’t speak their mind freely. We have special laws to punish people who say bad things about Allah, one of his deputies on earth (that’s from Mohamed Ibn Abdullah to Mohamed Ibn Hassan), or about Islam in general. The king is an Islamist. He doesn’t believe in secularism. The Makhzen is an Islamist institution too in that regard.

And you come here, telling Moroccans that you are supportive of so-called moderate Islamism but that you really meant supportive of the right of so-called moderate Islamists to speak up. In a country where they are in power and they have the freedom to say whatever they want. Do you not see anything wrong with this picture?

I mean…you can’t even admit that the lack of freedoms (freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to booze, freedom to screw, freedom to eat during Ramadan, equality of women, etc.) in Morocco is due to the government endorsement of Islam. Not only that, but you also feel the urge to defend the Islamists right to participate in government in a country where they are already in power.

And in case you didn’t know, the Quran is considered by Muslims to be the word of god. Which is not the case for the New Testament. Therefore, your attempt to sell the Christian Democratic party template as one which Islamism could fit falls flat. I’ll be happy to discuss the comparative evolution of Christian Democratic parties around the world if you so wish. But the common thread is that those parties came to public sphere from a weakened position. Because, most often than not, religion was publicly and routinely demonized. And, they were more open to consensus because they didn’t hold that their sacred book were the literal word of god. And there’s no “render unto caesar…” in the Quran or the Hadith. There are countless threats of violence against people who dare speak their mind or convert to another religion.

So…why do you feel the need to declare your support to Islamists? Do you think they’re not in power in Morocco? Do you think they risk jail-time for their convictions? Why, in your concern for your atheist Moroccan friend, do you not speak up against the reigning censorship?

The more I hear from you, the more you confirm being nothing more than an “apologist for all things Arab and Muslim”.

I’m glad we’ve finally gotten to the heart of where we disagree.

I support the right of Islamists to participate in debate, elections, governance, and legislation, on one condition: that they accept the principle of multiparty democracy and the idea of political alternance, and recognize that authority in the political arena belongs to the people.

Tariq Ramadan accepts these conditions, as does the Justice Party that presently governs Turkey — often called Islamist, though it is more correct to call it a party inspired by Islamic values, as Christian Democratic parties in Europe are inspired by Christian values. I’m opposed to religious “interference” in politics, but since the vast majority of humans are religious in one way or another, excluding religious values altogether from politics just can’t happen in a democratic system — in any culture.

Here is a lengthy discussion of Tariq Ramadan, his message, his intended audience and his critics, written from a secular, Western perspective by an authority I admire, Mark Lynch. His view is that we need to see Ramadan’s discourse in context. By drawing mainstream Muslims away from salafi or wahhabi influence and towards democratic pluralism, he’s doing everyone a service.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66468/marc-lynch/veiled-truths?page=show

I am obliged by my principles to support ALL voices in the democratic process, including Islamists, Zionists, right-wing Christians, Communists, Libertarians, militarists, racists, whatever — regardless of whether I agree with them — so long as they accept the ground rules of democracy as I outlined above. This doesn’t mean I agree with their political goals. It means I have no right to rig the game, claiming freedoms for myself that I’m unwilling to extend to everyone. It’s an application of the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

I feel that any attempt to exclude certain voices from participating because they are called Islamist (or Communist, etc.), is undemocratic. “Moderate, secular” dictatorships loved by the West (Turkey previously, Egypt or Tunisia today) exclude these voices not because they are guardians of democracy, but because political opposition is a threat to their monopoly on power. I’m sure you’re aware of the censorship, torture, and police surveillance that takes place in so many Arab nations, justified by the Islamist threat. I won’t assume you support such tactics, so I’ll ask you directly: Do you support these tactics in the name of preventing Islamists from coming to power? If yes, aren’t you denying freedom to others in the name of protecting your own freedom? If no, where do you draw the line against Islamists, differently from where I would draw it?

You say these debate is no concern of mine, but it is, for three reasons. The first is personal, I have friends living in Morocco whose future is at stake, and I want them to experience democracy in their lifetimes. This goes for my Islamist-leaning friends as well as for my secular, atheist friends (I have both, and others who fall in between). The second is that these are universal values that apply everywhere, regardless of national borders. The third is that the way these issues are debated is having a corrosive effect on politics in my own country, the U.S. The sooner the Muslim world goes through the sort of democratic transition that swept Latin America and South Asia in the 1980s-90s, the sooner the U.S. will have to deal with the Middle East democratically rather than imposing its misconceptions from half a world away. Dealing with reality is always healthier than projecting one’s illusions onto the world, so it’s partly out of American patriotism than I hope for democracy in the Middle East!

One final point, a definition of terms. You refer to the Moroccan state as Islamic, which is certainly true on paper — but in my view, the Moroccan state doesn’t govern the way it does because of Islam. It could be Catholic or Communist and have the same qualities. So I want to be clear that when I discuss Islamism, I’m not discussing the Moroccan state. By Islamist I mean everything from Islam-inspired movements that accept a pluralist system (the PJD in Morocco, Turkey’s governing party, Tariq Ramadan) through the Islamic Brotherhood and Hezbollah, all the way to rejectionists like Sayyid Qutb or Al Qaeda. I’ll say it again, my test of “good Islamists” is: Do they accept government based on the will of the people? Will they protect the rights of those who aren’t like them, and step down from power if they are rejected by popular vote? Maybe you feel there are no Islamists like that, but I know they exist. I see their participation as essential for democracy in the Muslim world.

Those are my principles. Innocent or self-deluded you may call them — a double standard they are not. Indeed, they come precisely from wanting the same rights for my ideological “enemies” that I want for my friends.

See…you just validated all my assumptions.

Islamism doesn’t scare you because you don’t have to live with its consequences. I do. And so do all other Moroccans. You choose to live under an Islamic state when you come in to Morocco with a blue passeport.

Tareq Ramadan mastery of double-speak is infamous, and you — all starry-eyed and unable to see totalitarianism for the evil it is — seem to be following in his footsteps. You can’t be for “religious and personal freedom” and at the same time “supportive” of Islamism. It’s an oxymoronic position to hold.

What does “moderate” Islamism even mean? That blasphemy is devaluated from a crime to a misdemeanor? That the daughter inherits 5/8th of what the son inherits? That one is free to eat in Ramadan so long as they hide it? That so-called Muslim women (by birth, I mean) can marry non-Muslim men as long as they’re sterilized? I’m sorry to be the one bursting the bubble you’re living in, but you can’t make compromises with people who claim to hold The Truth.

If you’re not opposed to religion getting mixed up with politics, then it’s no wonder you have planting trees as a priority. So, unless you’re one of those who have to live with Islamism, please refrain from commenting on it. It is not bullying to ask for a tiny bit of consistency. If you were forcibly affected by Islamism, you would get a say. I can’t be any clearer. And it is because I’ve given up on making you reconsider your views that I’m asking you to stay away from debates that don’t concern you. Unless you’re explicitly defending freedom from religion, equality and the like, don’t post. Because all you’ve done so far is rationalize an abhorrent system and justify horrors.

Thanks “alliflbattaata” for bringing us back on topic!

I agree that Mahdi did a great post. I like how he was willing to take a contrarian view, showing the insularity of digital activism instead of just praising it.

I think some of the “praisers” had great posts too, but Mahdi was unique on TM for taking the position he did, so thanks Mahdi for provoking our thoughts!

I’m sorry we hijacked his thread for a perfect “demonstration” of his point

I’d given up on this conversation because I was tired of having my motives and intelligence insulted, and my right to an opinion questioned, but since you’ve given Jillian a calm, well-reasoned response unlike anything I got, I feel that I understand better now where the misunderstanding began (if that’s what it is), so I’ll try one more time.

First, it was a mistake to frame my first comment on this thread as a reply to you, when it was more of a comment on the article itself, agreeing with Mahdi’s point about the insular world of online activism, and that grassroots activism is a more effective way to reach most Moroccans. I had no idea you’d interpret it as a frontal attack on your own priorities. I see no contradiction between your kind of activism and Mahdi’s, and both can exist simultaneously. It could even be the same person doing both. I was expressing my opinion about those priorities, and it would have been better if I’d addressed my ideas to Mahdi instead of to you.

I think we actually agree about more than you think we agree about, so it’s a shame that we got started this way. To be clear, I support religious and personal freedom in any country, separation of powers, government by and for the people, control of the military and police by a civil authority, the right of all individuals to due process and the presumption of innocence, etc., etc. There are three reasons I may not speak up for these things on Talk Morocco as strongly as I feel them: 1) I assume that everyone here already agrees, so there’s no need to keep going over it; 2) as a guest in Morocco, I am discreet in my criticism, and try to play by the local rules; and 3) I’ve been extremely disappointed in my own country’s practice of democracy in recent years, so I feel no bragging rights at all in applying these values to other nations.

You assume a number of things about my views that just aren’t true. I’ll list a few of them here. “Democratic reform should not be on the Moroccan priorities’ list” — to the contrary, there can never be real development without real democracy; where did you get the idea that I feel otherwise? “People like eatbees fail to take into account that there is censorship on every level of our society” — I’m well aware of the censorship, and have felt its unpleasant weight myself — on the other hand, Moroccans are often bolder in expressing themselves to strangers than they are with each other, so I figure I’ve heard just about every point of view by now. “Moroccan society is not ready for change” — of course it is ready for change; it has a desperate need for change; and it is changing, although the state is working hard to channel that change for its own interests. “Under the pretense that we’ll descend into chaos and the Islamists will take over, progressivist thought and action is stifled” — I know this dynamic and find it indefensible — first, because Islamism doesn’t really scare me, and in its moderate form (i.e. Tariq Ramadan) I’m even supportive of it — and second, because fear of Islamism should never be an excuse to suppress freedom as the Turkish state used to do, or as Egypt does today; the same democratic principles should be applied both to progressives and Islamists, and I will defend the rights of both to participate in democracy with equal conviction.

Finally, it’s obvious from some of your remarks that you’ve read my blog, and from what you’ve read, you seem to think that I’ve been “polarized” into an Israel bad/Palestine good mentality, meaning that I’m willing to be an apologist for everything Arab or Muslim. I don’t know where you got this straw man, but please burn it. It’s not fair to judge my views by only the most recent posts about Israel, because I haven’t been maintaining my blog regularly and the range of subjects isn’t as varied as it once was. So if you want a better sense of my views, go back to 2007 when I was working harder at it. Or just ask for my views on a subject instead of assuming — but please don’t go attributing views to me that I never had. Assuming “because eatbees believes X, he must believe Y, because all people who believe X believe Y” is foolish and irresponsible.

One last thing, Jillian may think the F word is fine, but it upsets me. I’m not sure why you think it will make me wake up. I guess slapping a person will get them to wake up too, but I call it bullying. And if you’re bullying I may not want to listen carefully what you’re saying. It may make you feel better, but if your goal is to get me to reconsider my views, it’s going to backfire.

Nevertheless, I agree with Jillian that you should try writing an essay for Talk Morocco, and I look forward to continuing our conversations if you’re so inclined — without the misplaced assumptions about what I believe, the bullying or the F words.