[Working paper] How significant was social media in the Arab Spring uprisings?

This is the introduction to our final essay for this semester. Any feedback/comments/criticism is much appreciated!

‘We use Facebook to schedule the protests and Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world.’ This sound bite from an anonymous revolutionary during the January 25^th protests that marked the beginning of the Egyptian revolution reflects the common, anecdotal depictions of social media as the causal mechanism of the Arab Spring. In typical sensationalist style, commentators have emphasised the role played by new technologies, defining the insurrections as a ‘social media revolution.’ Focusing on the information dissemination, communicational, and organisational facets of various online tools and spaces, enthusiasts assert that social media was instrumental in causing the popular protests. On the other hand, critics of this utopian perspective contend otherwise. Pointing to empirical data, the dystopian narrative minimises the role of social media, positing that the paucity of Internet access in Arab countries, as well as the potential for social media to be employed as a tool of state-sponsored repression, negates any supposed influence. For the purpose of this study, this paper will adopt the terminology used by Comunello and Anzera and will refer to the polarised positions as “digital evangelists” and “techno-realists” respectively.

Thus, this paper proposes a more nuanced analysis that transcends the faux binary that has since dominated the debate. Whilst both the digital evangelists and techno-realists’ perspectives merit critique, their dichotomous analyses oversimplifies complex processes. The mass transnational protests that erupted across the Arab world, beginning in Tunisia in December 2010, were ultimately manifestations of decades-long ‘discontent that extends to large segments of the population: the principle causes are the ineptitude of the ruling elite, difficult economic conditions and an intolerable level of corruption.’ Yet much of the existing literature has focused almost exclusively on conceptualising the Arab Spring revolutions in terms of the impact of social media, lending themselves to the criticism of media centrism and technological determinism. This paper seeks to navigate away from prevailing reductionist polarisations and propose a more balanced framework that evaluates the conducive role of social media amongst more significant contextual factors. It also seeks to reassert the oft-overlooked influence of other media, specifically satellite broadcast media, and the complex interactions between different media in facilitating the Arab Spring revolutions.

ISIS, Muslims and the MSM: Thoughts in brief

Once again, the mainstream media, true to it’s sensationalist, profit-orientated form, has decided to cover the latest terror attack in conflict-frames and disparaging rhetoric.

As a Muslim living in the West, I cannot help but feel overwhelmed by the incessant collective demonisation of my faith. Yes, ISIS is a vile organisation that should be challenged at every conceivable level. But to suggest that more than 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide are somehow responsible for the actions of less than 30,000 is equally reprehensible. To contextualise, ISIS represents roughly 0.0019% of all Muslims, according to CIA estimates. And this rests on the theological assumption that the self-styled jihadists actually qualify as “Muslim” (which they categorically do not, but that’s a debate for another day).

Of course, this hasn’t stopped some of the largest news corporations, broadcast and press, from perpetuating a “clash-of-civilisations” narrative. Unfortunately, this isn’t a new phenomenon. Rooted in an age-old Eurocentric, Orientalist discourse, this narrative resurfaces every time the most tenuous link to Islamic terrorism can be constructed.

Explicit demands for collective Muslim apologies from influential outlets such as CNN and The Sun, to name a couple, are thus entirely vacuous, and exacerbate ever-increasing tensions and intolerance between Muslims and non-Muslims. This charged climate of fear inevitably manifests in Islamophobic incidents. In the 48-hours since the Paris attacks, 15 mosques have been vandalised, countless assaults have been inflicted, and perhaps most troubling of all, the normalisation of anti-Muslim and anti-refugee bigotry by politicians across the spectrum in the so-called liberal societies of the West has become dangerously pervasive.

As it soon transpired, there were in fact no refugees involved in the terrorist attacks. Yet this hasn’t stopped various European countries and 25 states in the US from forcibly denying safe haven to the those fleeing the very same terror that ravaged Paris. There have been some calls, most notably by senile media mogul Rupert Murdoch, to afford only Christian refugees safety. How very Chris-like.

Muslims should not have to prove that they are civilised, nor should they be asked to apologise. An apology is an admission of guilt and culpability, and frankly, I don’t recall myself or any other Muslim I know participating or supporting terrorism. Nor do I recall widespread demands for all Christians to apologise for the KKK, white American males to apologise for school massacres, Europeans for colonialism or Americans for slavery. Nonetheless, every notable Muslim organisation from every sect and in every corner of the world has condemned ISIS. A bit of consistency from those supposedly committed to an informed citizenry would be nice.

For the sceptical, I would like to finish on this note. We Muslims are statistically the greatest victims of ISIS’ terror. And we’ve also fought them, militarily and ideologically, for the longest and the hardest. So kindly spare us your bigoted drivel, and recognise that we are an embattled, demonised minority that will continue to face wholesale persecution for nothing more than our hijacked identity.

 

 

 

Is the media responsible for the rise of Islamophobia?

Before I begin to construct a somewhat coherent argument, it should be noted that this particular piece is inspired by primitive research on the prevalence of Islamophobia in the public narrative, as well as an over-indulgence in caffeine at 5am.

As you may well be aware, Islamophobia, that is, anti-Muslim and anti-Islam bigotry, is on the rise in the so-called liberal societies of the West. Although distinguished academics (Edward Said ‘Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world’) have argued that Islamophobia is a historical phenomenon in the Western orientalist discourse, it’s recent prevalence has led me to question the indispensable role of the media in constructing such public narratives.

Whilst many scholars of the media that we have been exposed to thus far in the semester assert that the media has minimal effect on public opinion, I, in accord with Noam Chomsky, amongst others, maintain that it remains influential. Despite the complexity in quantifying “influence”, as well as the nuances involved in critiquing the extensity of such influence, observable outcomes can be useful indicators of the effects of information dissemination. Take, for example, the above Gallup Poll literature, or the more than 70% increase in Islamophobic offences in London recorded in the last year: these hate crimes do not appear in a vacuum.

The only obvious determinant of the drastic increase in such figures is the media. It is the only force capable of propagating disparaging narratives on such a massive scale and with such relentless intensity. Although I don’t discount the significance of social movements, political parties and influential individuals, I believe that they are consequential manifestations or expressions of the public narrative, rather than instigators (the rise of UKIP, Front Nationale and Golden Dawn are testament to this). Klapper’s assertions that the media is particularly influential in the primary group of one’s social interactions, as well as the notion that the media appears to have a robust effect in reinforcing previously held opinions (anti-Islam orientalist discourse) are pertinent here and will certainly be explored in further depth.

Whilst I concede that I have not fully assessed the empirical evidence of such claims, I maintain that the fundamental rationale is, to a degree and subject to qualifications, sufficient in explaining the prevalence of Islamophobia in society. One needs to do little more than occasionally glance at the front-pages of the Daily Mail, Daily Express, the Sun etc to observe how the print media, for example, can propagate Islamophobic sentiments. This is notwithstanding the role of broadcast and social media in contributing to this climate of irrational fear and hatred.

Of course this argument, as it stands, is primitive and hugely underdeveloped. Therefore I would sincerely appreciate any thoughts, comments or criticisms.

Humanising the dehumanised – on the plight of refugees.

[Intro]

Before I share my own experiences, I’d first like to relay the experiences of those who have suffered far more trauma than we can ever imagine.

You see I believe in this radical, revolutionary – some may say even controversial – idea called humanity.

At the highpoint of this ongoing ‘refugee crisis’, whether I was reading the news, ranting on twitter or preparing for this talk, I couldn’t help but notice the relentless dehumanisation of refugees in the public narrative, whether it was perpetrated by politicians – and our very own Prime Minister referring to desperate refugees as a “swarm” – or the media’s frankly quite disgusting use of “illegal immigrants” and “aliens” to describe these people, or more worryingly, your own Facebook friends, sharing bigoted views.

And as we all know quite well, and history will testify, that once you strip away the humanity of people, you can at best, avoid the need to act compassionately, and at worst, justify doing the most terrible things.

Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to share the story of only one refugee.

I feel obliged to say that some of you may find this distressing.

Ahmed is a 70 year old man from war-devastated Syria. Like many others, state violence, terrorism and poverty had driven him and his family to seek refuge. And whilst Ahmed, pictured here in Malta, succeeded in finding relative safe haven, the same cannot be said for 8 members of his family, who drowned at sea when their overcrowded rubber dinghy capsized. Dozens died in that single incident.

But the treacherous journey didn’t begin there. After draining his life-savings to escape Syria, the family fled to another war-torn country, this time Libya, where they were detained, tortured and raped by their smugglers.

Now having suffered incomprehensible loss in the pursuit of a chance to live, Ahmed languishes in the immoral detention centres of Europe, while he waits, unwelcomed and uncertain of his fate.

This is only one case, amongst the untold story of millions.

My intentions here are not to guilt-trip you, nor evoke your empathy.

Rather, by highlighting their plight, I wish to counteract the immoral discourse surrounding refugees. To dehumanise others is to first and foremost dehumanise yourself. And at the very least, you owe that personal responsibility.

Compassion takes courage, especially when the public narrative dictates that we must fear these people, an argument that is pathetically justified by ridiculous claims that refugees are here to exploit the benefits system, the NHS, or take your job.

No one takes these perilous risks, endangering their loved ones, unless they’re driven to absolute desperation.

No one does this for the £36 a week asylum allowance.

And yet retelling this, or any other of the countless stories, is not enough.

We need to ask ourselves some important questions, questions that have long been ignored as we’ve continued in our callous indifference.

Why are we reliant on searing images to awaken our collective conscience?

Why must we passively watch as thousands of our fellow human beings are swallowed up by the sea, tortured by smugglers, inhumanely detained by the so-called civilised European continent, and unwelcomed by our societies?

Why must we wait until the young child, Aylan Kurdi, and countless, nameless others, wash up on the shores of our favourite holiday destinations, before we rediscover our morality?

Why must we wait for grief to make us brave?

By remaining apathetic to the plight of humanity, we become morally complicit in this senseless tragedy.

No matter how much we hope and mourn, our intermittent grief is not part of the solution.

Until we move beyond the occasional feelings of empathy for the few iconic figures of this tragedy, and begin to demand meaningful solutions from those who claim to represent us, then you can expect this tragic cycle to continue.

Let’s not wait for the next child to wash up ashore before we are shocked into action.

As a UN development worker in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, I was fortunate enough to volunteer in many of the permanent refugee camps that have sheltered generations of displaced Palestinians.

I say “fortunate” for the sole reason that it was a truly humbling, inspirational experience.

Despite the ethnic cleansing, the brutal subjugation by the colonial occupying power, Israel, and the impoverished living conditions of the refugees, these people radiated optimism and hope.

I keep emphasising this idea of humanity, because in spite of the never-ending political conflict, the refugee children pictured here, such as young Ali, were driven by dreams of becoming doctors, lawyers, teachers and athletes.

What particularly struck me was regardless of the misfortune they found themselves in, there was an undying determination to live the ordinary lives led by you and I.

It made me realise how fortunate I am, as a political asylum seeker, to be extended the very same humanity that my fellow human beings have been continuously denied.

Thank you very much.

Until the Assad regime’s murderous tyranny is halted, the refugee crisis facing Europe will continue to worsen

It’s been infamously dubbed the “worst refugee crisis since WWII”, as thousands fleeing war in Syria embark on the treacherous journey to Europe in search of respite. Yet for all the grand humanitarian gesturing by Europe, few analysts and even still fewer leaders are willing to publicly acknowledge the root cause of the predominantly Syrian refugee crisis: the Bashar al-Assad regime.

Since the initial uprising against the regime began in 2011 almost 50% of Syria’s pre-war population have been internally displaced, whilst 4 million Syrians have fled. Although the majority of refugees sought safe haven in neighbouring Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, the unrelenting violence perpetrated by Syrian government forces ensured the spillover would inevitably reach Europe’s shores. And it did, quite literally, culminating in the searing images of drowned infant Aylan Kurdi last week.

Although the crisis seems to have jolted European hearts into action, heads remain stubbornly fixated on forces symptomatic of the larger issues at hand, namely the group known as Islamic State (IS). The International Coalition’s determined pursuit of the marauding self-styled jihadis is rightfully justified by its humanitarian credentials. And yet this begs the question: if the concern for human life were indeed paramount, then why isn’t the Assad regime, which in 2015 alone has killed 7 times more civilians than IS, pursued just as vigorously – or better yet – pursued at all?

While the answer to that lies entangled in the complex decision-making of our superiors, one thing remains abundantly clear: until Assad’s murderous tyranny is halted, the refugee crisis facing Europe will continue to both expand and deteriorate. The facts paint an extraordinarily clear picture. Of the documented civilian deaths in Syria since 2011, a staggering 97% of victims were killed by Assad government forces, according to the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR). Thus, if Europe is to have any success in stemming the flow of refugees, it must look beyond their unsustainable and financially costly absorption and towards tackling the perpetrators of their plight.

Yet by no means is this a straightforward task. Any hawkish military intervention is likely to only exacerbate the crisis. One only needs to look to the turmoil currently engulfing Libya to realise the reckless laissez-faire approach by Western countries to humanitarian crises is extremely short-sighted and destined to fail without adequate provision for post-conflict peace-building.

Unfortunately there is no quick fix to the civil war now entering its fifth year. The complex dynamic on the ground involving various incohesive belligerents, their regional state-sponsors as well as the international forces invested in the conflict endlessly complicates a deteriorating situation.

However, the magnitude of the ongoing refugee crisis demands an immediate response that directly addresses it’s causes. The dogmatic non-interventionism of the West that triumphed in 2013 retains validity, yet the moral and political imperative here lies with concerted action. Here, the complexity of the political and military situation on the ground can prove advantageous. Rather than subscribing to the pacifist-interventionist binary paradigm traditionally dominating the discourse, policy-makers should adopt more nuanced positions befitting reality.

This could involve the ‘hard military force’ David Cameron referred to, taking the form of a defensive “no-fly zone” increasingly called for by Syrian civil society groups and human rights organisations, as well as international institutions such as the International Crisis Group. Considering the International Coalition is already operating in Syria against IS, it’s certainly not beyond its capabilities to expand its mission to encompass the Syrian Arab Air force – Assad’s major instrument inflicting misery. Global opposition to the regime’s use of barrel bombs, crude explosive devices filled with shrapnel and dropped predominantly on civilian areas, counts for little so long as the bombs remain the largest cause of civilian casualties.

A second approach to tackling the refugee crisis could involve supporting Syrian civil society and the political opposition with the governance of areas currently liberated from Assad. Refugees continue to flee rebel-liberated areas such as Idlib due to the ineffective and chaotic nature of self-rule, alongside the continued use of barrel bombs by Assad. Addressing such a failure by creating a safe-zone, as favoured by the Turkish government and Syrian opposition, would create a safe haven in which refugees could return to and in which local governance could operate without attacks from Assad. Such a policy would work to alleviate the current refugee crisis, whilst also contributing to creating the foundations for the essential long-term Syrian-led reconstruction of Syria, in the seemingly inevitable and eventual post-Assad era.

To borrow UK PM David Cameron’s words, if there is to be a long-term solution to the refugee crisis, then Europe must act with its “head and its heart.” Simply taking in more refugees, while morally commendable, will only perpetuate an unsustainable reality. Europe must think – and act – decisively. To end the Syrian refugee crisis, alleviate the suffering of millions and facilitate the healing of a torn nation, then we must pursue its primary culprit: the Assad regime.

Islam el Naayam & Harry Shotton