All They Want Are Jobs

Every nation on earth, when confronted with the poverty and repression common to many Arab nations, is at risk of destabilization. Whether a given nation has the potential to become radicalized depends on the degree of poverty and repression at work. There is a “sweet spot” for positive, successful revolutions.

"Sweet spot" revolutions occur between two extremes. On one hand, anarchic situations coupled with acute moral and material need provides fertile ground for demagogues, warmongers, and fanatics to peddle their simple solutions to complex problems. Religion and rabid ideology offer simple routes to purpose for desperate people. Nothing positive will emerge from such circumstances. Think of Somalia today, or in dozens of recently decolonialized nations of South Asia, Africa, or the Americas from the fifties to the eighties. On the other hand, rich, oligarchic nations with few political opportunities often nevertheless have the time and energy for complex moral, religious and ideological arguments. But at the same time, they have too much at stake not to impose strict martial law. Think of Iran or Cuba.

Egypt is in that sweet spot for a positive, liberating revolution. It is relatively prosperous, but held back by poor governance; free, but repressed where it suits the ruling regime; knowledgeable about the outside world, but unable to aspire towards its promise. The resulting demands of the Egyptian demonstrators are middle class demands, not religious or ideological ones. Egypt in 2011 looks more like Poland in 1989 than it does Iran in 1979, or Haiti seemingly ever.

Religion and ideology don’t put people to work feeding their families, improving their lots in life, or enjoying the simple dignity of an earned day off. The fact that this particular revolution is about work means that, at most, religion will play a supporting role in the events that unfold. Egypt will not become a theocracy.

Iran under the Shah was already prosperous. The Iranian revolution was about morality, making it a perfect candidate for theocracy. It was not economic. The Egyptian revolution is about people demanding a purpose. Would a Yemeni revolution look the same? Doubtful. Yemenis are far from aspiring to the middle class in the same way as modern, outward-looking Egypt. It is difficult for me to imagine these two countries having similar outcomes from a revolution.

From the West's perspective, the real sign that the upheaval in Egypt and other corners of the Arab world is positive will be when leaders (new or old) begin to speak of economic liberalization, attracting foreign investment, improving education, and reducing corruption. If the West supports these ends before their immediate self-interest, they will be rewarded with new markets, ideas, and allies. Given the choice, almost anyone would choose gainful employment over martyrdom.

We should avoid becoming too involved in the political structures of Arab countries. Democracy is not an end in itself, nor is it something that all people in all instances are ready to adopt. Strong democracies have always emerged and thrived out of strong middle classes. People must have economic interests that are similar but independent from one another in order to need a system of consensus or majority rule. Democracy requires a tacit understanding that prosperity involves a balance between competition and cooperation. Where people need food, safety, and shelter, all bets are off. Where people seek some higher morality, there is no point in the endless deliberation of elected bodies. Where people want jobs and opportunity, democracy is all but inevitable. I have a lot of faith in this revolution.