Is there any reason for pundits to compare Occupy Wall Street and the Arab Spring?
The recent surge of anti-corporate protests in the United States has prompted many comparisons to the Arab Spring and the protests that have enveloped the Middle East and North Africa over the last 9 months. It would be a mistake, however, to say that the two are part of a unified movement.
It cannot be argued that some of the inspiration for the “Occupy Wall Street” movement came from the recent wave of activism in the Middle East. The goal of the two movements, like the goal of nearly all popular protests, is an increase in equality and rights. Despite this similarity, there remain key differences that deserve acknowledgement.
The two movements are operating in their own unique economical, political, and historical contexts. The Arab Spring, unlike the “Occupy” movements, is a response to years, often decades, of dictatorial rule. Protestors in the Middle East and North Africa are fighting and dying for their right to speak freely, to gather when they want, and to have a representative government.
The “Occupy” movements, on the other hand, emerge from an environment in which these basic liberties are protected. It is true that police have fired tear gas into crowds of protestors here in the United States, and that many activists have been detained and jailed for their participation. To understand the difference, however, between the consequences of protesting in the United States and in the Middle East, simply do a Google Image search of Khaled Said (warning: the image is graphic) to see what became of those who challenged the government in Egypt.
The comparison between the “Occupy” movements and the Arab Spring is a flattering one for those camped out on Wall Street and in other public spaces across the country. The corporatization of American politics and corporate dominance of economic policy are real concerns. They pale, however, in comparison to the oppression imposed by Mubarak in Egypt, Assad in Syria, Qadhafi in Libya, and Saleh in Yemen.
-Keenan Duffey, ’12 & Joe Dufour, ‘12
On a purely abstract level, it could be argued that the raison d’être of both movements is similar. Both are populist responses to a perceived misbalance of political power, which has allegedly advanced the interests of an entrenched elite at the expense of the majority. However, beyond these loose, theoretical commonalities, I am not sure there is really anything to compare. The differences in scope, context, and political culture are so pronounced that any comparison would seem to be of the apples-to-oranges variety.
Let us look at the facts. Occupiers at Wall Street have been protesting against tax cuts for the rich, while demonstrators in Tahrir Square rallied against over half a century of de facto martial law and cronyism in Egypt. Although viewed favorably by the general public, only a fraction of Americans have participated in OWS, in a society where free speech and the right to assemble are protected by the constitution. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Syrians have demonstrated against the Al-Asad regime in the face of merciless crackdowns that have already left 3,000 dead.
These distinct phenomenona reflect fundamental differences in the respective factors that produced them. The political values and legacy of America are not at all similar to those found in Syria. New York is a much different place than Cairo (although traffic is lousy in both). And the socio-political conditions that precipitated these outbursts differ so incredibly that even general comparisons run the risk of gross conflation. Occupy Wall Street and the issues its members seek to address are distinctively American, or at least Western. Expending our energy comparing OWS to the Arab Spring is a pointless exercise. Instead, we should be asking ourselves if OWSers bring any legitimate concerns to the table. For instance, what is the proper role of money in the political process of a representative democracy, and is this role reflected in American society?
-Jonathan Liedl, ‘11
