Uprisings in the Arab World have surprised people around the world and especially those political analysts who had assumed that there was no desire for democracy and freedom among Arab people, and that Arabs were not seriously dissatisfied with their dictators. While uprisings have rapidly spread into each and every single dictatorship in the region, a question arises: what are the common causes in these revolts?

Using the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy[1], I wrote an article after the Tunisian revolution[2] in which I extracted and defined a comparative indicator that could explain a common factor for the uprisings in the region’s countries from Iran to Tunisia and from Egypt to Syria. One of the advantages of this indicator is that its extraction has been based on objective data and credible public opinion surveys and not just on abstract ideas. A reliable indicator, in general, is one which has the ability to explain the incidents, and in addition, can anticipate plausible incidents in the future. The mentioned indicator has both of these features as it was proved reliable in understanding the Tunisian revolution, and by that we could predict the emergence of similar uprisings in Egypt, Yemen, Libya and Syria after they took place in Tunisia.

This indicator, which can be called the index of “scarcity of democracy”[3], represents the difference between the “supply of democracy” by governments and the “demand for democracy” by people. If in a society, the level of demand for democracy is much higher than the level of supply of democracy, the potential for discontent and protest would be higher. So the pro-democracy uprisings aim to reduce the gap between the supply and demand of democracy. Figure 1 shows the index of “scarcity of democracy”, the mentioned gap, for countries with unrest in the region (and some other Muslim countries).

As the above figure shows, the gap between the levels of supply and demand of democracy in Syria is one of the highest in the region. In Tunisia and Libya, which have had a comparably high level of scarcity of democracy, people revolted and removed their dictators over past months.  In the meantime, similar uprisings in other countries - namely Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan and Morocco – have occurred that resulted in the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt and some political reforms in other countries, such as freedom of political prisoners, the promise to abdicate and etc. Also in Iran, about a year before the Arab uprisings, Iran was the scene of massive protests against the state which gradually formed a civil movement. This movement was suppressed harshly by the government and has declined to some extent, but it can still be seen and traced in different forms of protests.

Regarding the Syrian uprising, two remarkable and outstanding features distinguish it from other protests in the region. The first is the continuation of civil resistance despite the brutal and continued government suppression of the Syrian protestors. In comparison, when non-violent protests in Iran were suppressed by the government, people set back and left the street protests, unlike Syria. But despite the bloody crackdown by Bashar Asad’s regime in Syria and the killing of at least 100 non-violent protestors per week[4], demonstrations continue to take place six months after their began. Although several factors (e.g., the spirit of martyrdom, Arab pride, the fear that Asad would massacre all dissidents if he survived the revolt, etc.) can play a role in the resilience of the protests, I believe the key factor of the endurance of resistance in Syria is the spirit of social solidarity among people. To support this, I would like to employ an objective indicator. In one of the questions in global public opinion surveys by Gallup, the respondents are asked, “If you were in trouble, do you have relatives or friends you can count on to help you whenever you need them or not?”.  The response to this question is considered to be the indicator for the “perception of social support” by Legatum Institute which annually publishes a prosperity index.[5] The result of the public survey by Gallup in 2010 (before the uprisings) indicates that 90% of Syrians say “Yes” to the above question, while only 62% of Iranians had a positive response. Moreover, 82% of Tunisians, 77% of Egyptians and 72 % of Libyans said yes to this question (see Figure 2).[6] The high level of this indicator in Syria shows the existence of a remarkable social solidarity which may give hope and encouragement to those who decide to participate in protest demonstrations despite risks and dangers involved. In contrast, saying like “don’t endanger yourself since nobody will care if something bad happens to you” would be rampantly whispered in those countries with lower level of social support.

  

The second significant feature of the Syrian uprising is that despite the brutal suppression and bloodshed against the non-violent resistance of people, protestors have not converted their non-violent methods to a violent approach. In Libya such a change took place much earlier. It can even  be argued that in Libya the appeal for international military intervention by protesters and the opposition was made very early compared to Syria, while Syrian protesters have till now tried to resist resorting to non-violent methods and have confined themselves to  street demonstrations while  requesting international diplomatic pressure on Asad’s regime. Again we can list several factors and causes for this difference; however, I prefer to utilize another indicator to explain this issue. The indicator, which  I call “confidence in the effectiveness of peaceful means”, is grasped from the question, “Can oppressed groups improve their situation through peaceful means ALONE?” (upper case emphasis by the survey). The results of a Gallup survey, which was conducted before the uprisings, indicate some considerable implications for countries in the region (see Figure 3). In Egypt 60%, Tunisia 52% and Syria 50% of respondents believed in “peaceful means alone”, while in Libya this stood at 41% and in Iran at 38%.[7] The higher perception of effectiveness of “only non-violence” in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria might result in the continuation of peaceful demonstrations whereas in Libya the struggle became violent after a couple of weeks (We should not forget that the period of struggle in Egypt and Tunisia was much shorter than the one in Syria).

 

Another remarkable indicator for comparing these countries is “the social acceptance of military attacks on civilians”. For this issue, people are asked “Whether the attack of military to target and kill civilians can be sometimes justified or whether it is never justified”. Results of the Gallup survey in 2010 show that 87% of respondents in Tunisia, 83% in Egypt and 86% in Yemen said that military attack on civilians is never justified while, 59% in Libya and 67% in Iran have given the same answer.[8] Unfortunately, this indicator has not been measured in Syria. This considerable difference shows that in countries like Libya and Iran (and probably Syria) a larger part of society can accept and justify the attack of armed forces on civilians. This could be a reason why in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen we have observed the impartiality of military forces against protesters whereas in Libya and Iran (and in Syria) the military has attacked people.

In Syria, even though Syrian people have been protesting non-violently so far, their patience cannot last forever. The result of a recent opinion survey, which was conducted after the Syrian uprising, shows that among 144 countries, Syrian people occupy the highest rank of people who experienced anger, worry, stress and sadness in their daily life (in response to the following question : “Did you experience Anger/Worry/Stress/Sadness during A LOT OF THE DAY yesterday?”).[9] Therefore, it seems unlikely that Syrian people would withdraw from their struggle before the dictatorship falls. Their very high level of anger however, may lead to a change in their method of struggle.

In conclusion, as long as the “scarcity of democracy” exists in authoritarian regimes in the region, the emergence of uprisings to end dictatorships is inevitable. Even If protests appear to have subsided in some countries, fire shall erupt from the ashes. Without filling the gap between the demand and supply of democracy, sustainable state of stability is unimaginable. In order to reduce the gap, the favorite option of dictators is trying to reduce the demand for democracy within the public. Fortunately, this option is not possible anymore because of modern communication tools and widespread public requests for democracy. Therefore, the only possible solution for filling the gap and strike the equilibrium is to increase the supply of democracy. As a result, when an authoritarian regime does not allow people to participate in making decisions for their destiny, people will rise for their rights as we see happening in Syria. Undoubtedly, it will not be long before Syrian people, with their social solidarity, public will and commendable resistance will close the gap in the “scarcity of democracy”, and will become a model for the other countries in the region.  

* Researcher of comparative governance in Tilburg University and an Iranian civil activist