Arab spring, the domino effect in the Muslim countries in the Middle East leading to violent and non-violent movements either being successful or not, depending on the relative countries. It is difficult for one to understand this whole predicament in the broad aspect, therefore for this particular reason the focus will be on two countries where in one non-violent movements were successful and in the other violence had to be used for their to be positive peace. This paper will compare and contrast the role of violent versus non-violent tactics during the recent events of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’. Alongside with that it will discuss why certain strategies proved to be more and effective. In order to completely comprehend the strategies used this paper will focus particularly on Egypt and Libya. The specific focus will be towards the fact that the non-violent movements in Egypt were successful due to several factors and major impacts.
The two were chosen since one had a nonviolent movement that was effective and resulted in the overthrowing of Mubarak in Egypt. On the other hand, Libya was were nonviolent movements were ineffective and therefore they had to resort to violence. The idea that people in today’s society would want there to be supportive has an immense impact on decisions that governments make. For instance, in Egypt there was the idea of a nonviolence protest, which led to the downfall of President Hosni Mubarak. This started when the Egyptian citizens had formed a protest in order for Mubarak to resign his presidency in the Tahrir Square, which came to be a city of its own during the eighteen-day protest.
Tahrir square became its own city in a sense that people were calling it a “utopia”. Kamel stated in his article, Tahrir Square The Production of Insurgent Space and Eighteen Days of Utopia that “Tahrir Square was virtually a working city with hundreds of thousands of people” (Kamel, 38). This new-formed city had people doing many of the regular daily activities that people preform in their daily lives, such as sleeping, teaching, debating, cleaning, and defending it from thugs, security forces and military (Kamel, 38). There were layers of barricades that “prevented thugs and pro-state militias from entering the square and were staffed around-the-clock with rotating crews” (Kamel, 38).
One could be asking the question as to why would nonviolent protest work when it became a city on its own rather than an outburst type of protest, the answer is that there were three main factors that allowed President Mubarak to be able to stay president. The first was the fact that he kept a very low profile, second was that he did not worry about the outlook of the media as long as his family was spared, and third is the failure of having an opposition political party (Kamel, 37). The idea was that until the protest in Tahrir Square there was no opposition as to what Mubarak was doing while being President of Egypt, and this was the main...