Prof. Krastyo Petkov was the first president of the trade union confederation KNSB (Confederation of Independent Unions in Bulgaria – CITUB) from 1990 to 1997, after leading the radical reform of the old union structures inherited from the Soviet era. He currently chairs an independent labour party, the United Labour Block, and is a lecturer at the University of National and World Economy in Sofia. He also lectures on issues of the informal economy and is a consultant to the Bulgarian Home Workers’ Association. .
Petkov visited Tunisia in March 2011 together with a Portuguese and Hungarian colleague, at the invitation of the US National Democratic Institute. The US NDI was responding to a request from Tunisian democratic activists to meet and share experiences with activists who had the direct experience of overthrowing the fascist or Stalinist regimes in Europe. Petkov’s notes, impressionistic but insightful, are givern below.

Letters from Tunisia
Local Effects of the Global Revolution!
by. Krastyo Petkov
The idea to publish the Letters from Tunisia in the blog appeared on the third day of my stay in this unique country. I have chosen the genre of sociological essay since in-depth analyses take time, and as one of those newly-arrived foreigners in this currently turbulent region in North Africa my knowledge of its history is rather inadequate. Added to that is the deficit of systematic immediate impressions that would allow me to have a more solid, balanced view on the post-January events.
The publication of these essays in the form of letters became possible thanks to the invitation I received from NDI /National Democratic Institute, USA/ to join an international expert mission in Tunisia. I was working together with a team of American field experts and colleagues from Hungary and Portugal who had participated in the historical changes in their own countries several decades ago.
Here I am, sharing my impressions as a sociologist even though my participation in the discussions was in the capacity of a political and trade union expert. That role implies ad-hoc responses while research demands complete immersion in the situation and long insider observation of the conduct of the leading actors.
Well, the initial dive is a fact now. I will tell you about that later on…
The Factor of “Surprise”
14 March 2011
„The January revolution was a complete surprise !” We heard that confession the very first day. It was repeated by all people we talked with – political leaders, trade union leaders, lawyers, political experts, journalists. The same assessment was present in a number of comments I read before leaving. Even the opponents of Ben Ali’s regime, hardened by political battles and prisons, shared that they had not expected such a tempestuous resurgence of the protests, especially after the ruthless suppression of the miners’ riots in 2008.
Widely commented in Tunisia are also certain interesting developments preceding the events that changed in just a couple of days the political landscape in the Arab East.
Ambassador blunders. Our Tunisian friends ironically told us that on the 14th of January, just hours before Ben Ali’s flight, the French Ambassador informed his government in Paris that the regime remained stable and the street discontent had no chance!!! After some thunderous protests in front of the Embassy’s building the ill-timed ambassador was recalled; his successor behaved rather haughtily with the local journalists, qualifying the events as rioting instead of admitting that he had been a witness of an authentic revolution. That was followed by more protests in front of the Embassy. Thus the credibility of the institutions of France, a democratic European country which, despite its colonial past, was only recently respected in Tunisia, crumbled in just a few days.
The IMF Failure. As I have already written in the blog, some days before the uprising in Libya IMF published an official communication praising the economic prosperity of the Jamahiriya!? Dominique Strauss-Kahn had to urgently intervene to gloss over the wide gap between the diagnosis issued by his subordinates and the realities. Though made post factum, the authoritative DSK’s statement contained a significant admission: one cannot measure the prosperity of any country from a “bird’s eye view”, through macroeconomic measurements only; civil liberties and social injustice are the true indicators of success;
The Next Intelligence failure. Even the omnipresent intelligence networks of the big western states or Israel could not foresee the political and social outburst in the region! (Repeating the history of 1989 when these same services had, even up to the very last, been unaware of the chain revolutions about to happen in Eastern Europe.) As often stressed by our hosts, that was also one of the reasons for the delayed inadequate EU and US responses in Libya and, before that, in Egypt. By the way, many people in Tunisia spoke in rather unflattering terms about the western countries’ claims of imposing their civilization model by force in regions with unique culture and history that they have no knowledge of. As some leaders of parties and civil organizations kept repeating to us, „We expect social and economic assistance from EU and US, right now, when we badly need it in order to continue the revolution”. They are adamant that the direct political interference would have an opposite effect. The slogans raised during the anti-American rallies held over the past few weeks in the Tunisian capital were also along these lines. One of our interlocutors (ex-political detainee and leader of one of the opposition organisations) did not hesitate to call Europe’s position regarding the Arab countries ”dumb”. We could not come out with any convincing arguments in response. On the contrary, we rather agree with the claims of some authoritative commentators and the media revelations about certain close political and corporate links between the rich countries and the despotic regimes in the Arab East (including the Kadafi clan).
But let me go back to the “surprise” factor…
It is my impression that the political leaders living in Tunisia or in exile are not very pleased to dwell on that subject. To some extent that is understandable: one does not enjoy being put in a situation that is developing on one’s own turf, yet beyond one’s control. Instead most political activists, who are more or less known as such, seem prepared to act as partners with the initiators of the chain protests. The trade unions were the first to come in support of the protesters. While doing that they made no attempt to supplant the new revolutionaries or to discourage them.
In fact, who are they? Why did they act – how did they dare to oppose the brutal authorities that had ruthlessly crushed any attempt at resistance in the past? How was the Tunisian revolution at all possible in the presence of such an aggressive and repressive central government?
I am afraid these questions have no easy answers, despite the growing number of candidates for fame as competent chroniclers of the current regional march to freedom and democracy in the Arab East.
Among them is Thomas Friedman, a prominent publicist from New York Times (author of a book that was popular a few years ago – “The World is Flat”). As a bookish globalist, Friedman referred to five factors stirring up the people in the Arab countries to rebellion:
The Obama Factor. The election of Barak Obama as US president stirred up thoughts and kindled ambitions among the young Arabs: „He has become US President, though he is an Afro-American and his grandfather is a Muslim; his skin is dark and he is young, just as I am; besides his second name is Hussein- that is my name too”/. With these phrases Friedman explains the charismatic influence of the American president over the young Arab generation;
The Google Еarth Factor. It is illustrated with the case of Mahmoud from Bahrain, who lives in the house of his Shiite parents together with other 16 relatives. However Mahmoud looked up in Google Earth and saw the other fabulous world of the super rich with their palaces in Bahrein. That story (according to the publication in Washington Post) opened up his eyes to the truth;
The Israel Factor. In that state, eyed suspiciously by all Arabs, things they have never seen before are now happening: the Israeli Premier is sentenced for bribe-taking and the President – for rape; corrupted officials and highly-placed politicians are sent to prison. Again, all this leads to comparisons, naturally, not in favour of the law and order in the Arab societies!
The Olympics Factor. As the Olympics were held in Beijing the Arabs were able to compare China’s prosperity with the infrastructure and the living standards in their own countries. Here again the balance was not in their favour. Egypt, for instance, had been a great civilization thousands of years ago, comparable to that in China…
The Fayyad Factor. The reference here is to the Palestinian Premier who impressed the Arab people with his pragmatic policy and focus on the economy. His words ”Judge me on my performance, on how I create jobs – not simply on how I “resist” the West and Israel” – were a sign of a new orientation of the rulers in the Arab region that the local population could relate to.
I am paying more attention to Friedman’s interpretations because they are an example of how NOT TO WRITE about the Arab revolutions.
I am leaving aside the fact that the main thesis in the above book, which has become a globalist bible, has not been confirmed in practice: the world has not been made “flat” and a better place to live in as a result of globalization and the new technologies; instead regional inequalities have exacerbated in the extreme, generating new mass poverty.
The verbal hodge-podge made by Friedman led to massive negative reactions among the Facebook users in the Arab countries. His arguments were perceived as an insult to the national dignity and cultural uniqueness of the local communities. I now know from the horse’s mouth that the Arabs are painfully sensitive to the allegations coming from some self-proclaimed analysts on commission that their revolutions are a product of foreign/outside influences.
Tunisia in particular is an indisputable proof that the allegations concerning the “import of revolution” are untenable. That is also my conviction after having asked the same question from dozens of people: bearing in mind that the protests have not been organized in advance from the inside, how did the January events that have shaken the world actually happen?
I have to stress that there was not even a single hint in all the answers pointing to an act of conspiracy on the orders of and paid for by any foreign powers (USA and Israel being usually perceived as the culprits). No matter whom we asked, the answers pointed to young people, women and informal networks as initiators and performers, scriptwriters and actors of the dramatic actions played out in the Tunisian country and capital city.
And something else that is special: the spontaneous nature of the civil protests. Every citizen of Tunisia we have met admits that the spark that kindled the fire is the self-sacrifice of Mohamed Bouazizi – a youth driven to despair, who set himself on fire on 17 December 2010 in protest against the violence against him on the part of a female police officer. That was followed by intermittent street clashes in the poor southern provinces, leading to the Big bang – the powerful social implosion in the Capital downtown.
The day was the 14th of January, 2011. Over 10000 protesters, mostly youths, gathered in front of the sinister Ministry of Interior….
Faced with an unknown formidable threat (mass insubordination without organizers, an assault without visible commanders), the official authorities decided to use force. They did that, using the well-tested method of murders and repressions. Snipers shot more than 200 protesters on the Bourguiba Boulevard.
The aftermath however differed from the expectations of the dictator and his environment: the trade unions rose on a general strike and the number of protesters grew five times over (more than 50 000 gathered in the square in front of the office of the Prime Minister). The police were not able to resist their onrush.
It was at that moment that a certain thing happened that every Tunisian can be proud of today with good reason: the troops refused to obey Ben Ali’s order to shoot against their own people. Hours later the dictator fled the country….
Thus the magic spiral called “spontaneous civil resistance” unfolded and sprung to effect within that short time interval of 28 days..
Who drove the long suppressed discontent to unbridled anger and easily inflammatory explosion and how that was done is still an unraveled mystery. I believe that the background of the revolution, intense with informal meetings, exchange of information, building horizontal networks of resistance etc, will sooner or later be explained and reconstructed episode by episode. That intriguing task will be a challenge to the experts in political anthropology and ethnography.
I hasten to note that I do not see “the winter of discontent” leading to the collapse of the despotic rule in Tunisia as a mere mechanical repetition of the resistance emerging in Eastern Europe on the eve of 1989.
Indeed some new trade unions and citizen/dissident networks had sprung up in our region that eroded the totalitarian regimes and caused a series of “tender” revolutions. If we go back to the time of three decades ago we will see that although the instruments of the Polish Solidarity were rich in forms of organized resistance, all the information, contacts, decisions happened in “real life”.
The mobilization instruments used the participants in the Arab revolutions are different, they are virtual: Facebook and Twitter. Their role is instrumental as a tool of information exchange; they are not the causes and drivers of discontent and conspiracy against the rule, as argued in the multifactor analysis of the New York Times observer.
My conclusion is that the virtual information and mobilization weapon is not amenable to control. Any attempt to ban the access to Facebook and the restrictions on the use of internet massively introduced in the world (also in my native country Bulgaria) are doomed to failure.
The great historical change comes down to the fact that the Global Revolution and its local manifestations as seen today in the Arab region are not being driven by any professional revolutionaries or heroic leaders (they could be intimidated or eliminated), but by the invisible partnerships of the young internet generations of all countries.
That makes them virtually elusive and unpredictable!
The Power of the STREET
15-17 March 2011
„ THE STREET – that is the power dictating the course of the revolution in Tunisia!”
That is how one of my first interlocutors, Said, an election consultant, framed his answer when I asked him who drove the changes.
This assessment made by that independent intelligent expert with international experience and a practiced eye seemed logical.
Yet how does the STREET exert his power exactly? That mystery is far more interesting!
The street is an anonymous subject, yet the revolutions, both classic (with influential ideologists and popular leaders) and post-modern (without a leader known to the public) are still driven by somebody’s initiative. Without ideas and innovations conceived by living people no social change demands could possibly be formulated by the multitudes of citizens.
Who are these people and how do they enforce their will? From the dozens of talks and meetings in Tunisia with Arabic experts /and before that – in Brussels and Sofia) I have come to the following conclusion:
THE STREET is the social space where the revolutionary energy of the people’s masses is concentrated today. The social dynamics are happening there, on the Main Street.
Today, in the 21st century, people do not flood streets and squares motivated by group/class slogans and organizers, as happened previously in the course of history. Pulsating in that dynamic location are forms of public activity that are directed through the social networks. Their initiators and activists are young intelligent people in horizontal configurations (the so-called flat hierarchies).
Confidence in the network as a vehicle of information and multiplier of individual plans is beyond doubt. Otherwise it is hard to explain how a Facebook message stirs interest and sends thousands of protesters to a specific place /for example, the way it happened in Bulgaria in January 2009, after the murder of a student in a university campus, or the recent protests against the high speculative fuel prices in the big cities in Bulgaria, held by youths and road transport operators /.
ANGER is the social weapon skillfully wielded by the new revolutionaries.
That phenomenon was also noticed by some researchers of other social and political revolutions /for instance, by David Ost with his brilliant reconstruction of the vigorous protests of the Polish Solidarity in his book “The Defeat of Solidarity”/.
Another colleague, Mohamed, my initial mentor in Sofia before I set out on my way to Northern Africa (a journalist who has followed up the geopolitical developments in the Arab region for more than 20 years) explained the effect of ANGER in the following manner: „When 50 or 500 people gather together, you could frighten and defeat them. The Arab dictators are masters of that craft and do not hesitate to use arms against the rebels. However when 100 000 people pour out into the street and then grow to one million people, the way it happened in January his year, there is no way to stop them. They are the ones who make their enemies fear”.
THE FEAR of the former/present/interim rulers, fueled up by massive ANGER is the next link of the chain producing change.
That rule can be seen in Tunisia with a naked eye. When ministers who had loyally served the former regime entered the first interim government THE STREET rose again. THE FEAR of the January events being repeated is what compelled Premier Ganoush to hand in his resignation. A second interim government was formed, enjoying much higher social confidence.
Very important in that critical moment was the role played by a brilliant article written by the top lawyer from the capital city Tafik Uanes, calling on the Premier to withdraw. I had the luck of meeting Mr. Uanes and hearing his precise analysis of the unique situation in the country after the onset of the revolution/.
„It is enough for 200 youths to come together in front of the iconic place, the boulevard in front the building of the Ministry of Interior” for the memory of the January attack to be resurrected and the next change of power to be triggered off”, argued Said in support of his view on the role of the STREET. .
Memories or, more exactly, the collective memory are another emotional driver inducing an active attitude to the revolutionary events. Apparently that was the reason for the NDI mission organizers to organize the so-called Revolutionary Trip for myself and Alberto (the other external expert from Portugal) /the Bulgarian equivalent would be “Following the Steps of the Revolution”/.
We were taken on a half-day trip to all places where the most heated clashes between the protesters and the police had taken place: from Habib Bourguiba’s monument, along the whole boulevard bearing his name, as far down as the old city where the offices of the Premier and the key ministries are located. We were accompanied by two guides who told us, episode by episode, of the chronology of events on the eve of the 14th of January and in the course of that portentous day.
The stories naturally had their emotional effect n us, the small group of Europeans and Americans. However no less interesting to me was what the STREET looked like now, two months later.
Fate had sent me to quite a few places in the world before, where coups d’etat, demonstrations or bloody clashes between the people and their oppressive regimes had taken place (Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, Bosnia and Herzegovina, India), yet the impressions from Tunisia are unique. First, because the suggestions of certain self-conceited schooled “democrats” from the West that the Arab people were not grown up enough to enjoy freedom and equal rights finally came to nothing; second, because here the revolution was not followed by any violence, acts of revenge, or street anarchy.
It is true that the army is deployed in all key sites in the capital, protecting ministries, some embassies, presidential residencies and the synagogue. Some troops are friendly; others strictly enforce the orders of their commanders (for example, the ban on taking photos of the tanks deployed on alleys and squares). However that is so after a revolution for provocateurs, pillagers and thieves must be restrained (as well as specially sent activists of organizations close to Ben Ali with the task of organizing street riots and chaos after the flight of their patron).
I know that some of my new friends in Tunisia will not agree with that assessment. I also met people who remonstrated against the frequent spontaneous rallies that stopped the traffic in the city. I heard complaints about the blocked traffic caused by thousands of petty merchants placing their goods on sidewalks and even on street lanes. (indeed the “suitcase” trade, banned before January 2011, is now thriving, which reminds me of our Ilientsi commodity center or the marketplace near Dimitrovgrad , embodiments of the nascent “market economy” in the first years after the change in Bulgaria – the more so that the sources and suppliers of the cheap goods brought to Tunisia and Sofia are much the same: Turkey and China. Yet I know that “fashion” will fade in time and that order will be restored. The point is that many Tunisians refuse to accept these ugly sights and some even sigh for all the security under the old regime. Very much as it is in Bulgaria!)
However, as the saying goes, these are just details of the landscape. What is more important is what other events are taking place in the city open air space and in the countryside. I cannot say anything about the remote regions, especially those on the border with Libya because I have no personal impressions. Still one should not fail to mention a fact shared many times by the leaders and experts we spoke with.
The January revolution actually started from the periphery, from some extremely poor south provinces. That is the area where the martyr Boazizi set himself on fire. Then the fire moved to the capital to reach the dramatic conclusion on 14 January. The only thing is that, as pointed out by our interlocutors, the vanguard fighters of the revolution from these provinces are not present at the forums where the destiny of the country is solved. “ Their heroism is not given the respect it deserves, not even in the democratic alternative, the media, which are still in the grip of their old habits (comment of a European Ambassador to Tunisia).
I accept and believe his comment. It is a telling fact that no representatives of these regions had been invited at the first meeting of the High Commission in defense of the revolution and the democratic transition, convened on 17 March 2011.
Some organizations on the other hand go a step further in their esteem for the victims and their friends and relatives, they hold commemorative meetings as a public ritual. I have in mind the Islamist movement in Tunisia, outlawed in the past and subjected to repressions by Ben Ali’s regime . After the revolution it was among the first to be registered as a political party: Ennahdha.
We were its guests on two occasions and we first met it at a mass rally dedicated to the victims of the dictatorial regime. As we were told, more than 90 per cent of them came from the Islamists’ movement.
In my estimate, that forum in commemoration was attended by more than 2000 people ( part of them accommodated in the crammed city hall, and the rest – in the lobbies and the park in front of the building). We were seated on the first row from where we observed and heard the speakers; the spontaneous confessions of the mothers, wives and daughters of people murdered and vanished without a trace, a string orchestra engaged specially for the occasion, the crowded journalists and camera operators… The staging of the event was psychologically perfect, stirring up unforgettable emotions both in the local people being present and in us, the foreigners.
At the point of leaving we were informed that the forum was not political; it had been initiated by civic human rights organizations.
That is probably so, but the final effect could not but be political. The time of elections is close and Ennahdha will fight to win as many votes as it can. Its first leaders were present at the forum.
I may be mistaken, but it seems to me they earned at least 5000 votes of support that day. These unwavering votes will come not only from the ex-prisoners and activists present in that venue, but also from the families of those who perished for the Islam cause.
That is more than just a nuance in the political landscape; it is rather a universal sign of the new Arab revolutions: the offensive of the politically organized Islam. I will dwell on that peculiarity in my next letter…
Before that I would like to share a preliminary conclusion: I have no doubt that we are witnessing a global chain revolution; it takes place in specific situations and generates the deceptive notion that the events are unique and inimitable in each country. That misleading conclusion is seemingly convenient for those political strategists who were late in discovering how unpredictable (and radically different from their forecasts/ the consequences of the national revolutions can be.
Yet there are also certain unique features worth noting and eventually worth being subjected to a thorough analysis. The masses in Tunisia and in most countries in the Arab region (the new social groups – youths, women, professional guilds etc.) are the ones to start the revolutions; the political parties and their leaders are the ones to follow them.
The reaction in the aftermath seems like a typical malaise of the international community too. It is not pleasant to have the role of someone who has to catch up with developments. However, such is the irony of the historical situation in the second decade of the 21st century….
History Repeats Itself! But Not Quite ! And not As Farce …
17-19 March, 2011
The January events in the Arab East are most frequently compared with the so-called tender/velvet revolutions in the Eastern European countries in 1989. Even the terms used in the discussions are the same: “wind of change”, “totalitarianism”, “democratic transition” etc.
The invitation for the visit to Tunisia extended to Miklosh from Hungary and myself actually came from the American National Democratic Institute as a result of the insistent request of the local partners to discuss their problems with people from eastern Europe who had lived through the events in 1989 and through the first phase of transition. Portugal was also of interest, especially with its territorial proximity and historical traditions. Yet the “Revolution of the Carnations” was more distant in time….
I cannot complain of any lack of interest in what I had to say. I was flooded with dozens of questions about the beginnings of the transition in Bulgaria: the Round table, the role of the trade unions and the new democratic parties, the positions of the supporters of the old regime. Above all else was the interest in the procedure followed in drafting the new Bulgarian Constitution and the laws governing the elections and the status of parties.
I chose the following manner of communicating, for it seemed the only one that worked in the situation I had found myself in: not to give any direct advice; instead to provide a critical analysis of our own experience of 22 years ago (with a focus on the mistakes we could have avoided if there had been a model to follow). Unfortunately no such model existed in 1989…
In truth, there are quite a few similarities between the two “chain revolutions” – „1989” and „2011”
:
– sudden collapse of the old regime;
-mass involvement of the citizens in the first days and months;
– a swarm of new parties and movements;
-a key role of the trade unions;
-the key slogans: ”democracy”, „freedom”, „pluralism”;
Yet it is also true that the historical context, the national traditions and the configuration of the forces on the eve and at the outset of the first Arab revolution – the Tunisian one, are different. I would even say – unique!
My reason for saying this is not the formal respect due to my hospitable hosts. was convinced by their arguments, for they were arguments and proofs suggested by a mixed group of participants in the discussions, different in origin and social status /I would like to specially note the incidental discussion with a group of students on the Square of the Perished in the capital of Tunisia as well as the meeting with Habib Bourguiba’s granddaughter who was back from her exile in England/;
The impact of the conceptions of some foreign observers I spoke with before and during my mission in Tunisia (professional analysts, ambassadors, geopolitical experts) comes only second in shaping my thesis.
So, what are the unique features of the Tunisia-2011 Revolution?
I would put traditions first. Under Habib Bourguiba and especially under Ben Ali the resistance against the authoritarian methods of governance did never cease. Political crises followed one after another. The internal fights never stopped even while the international community (calling itself democratic!) maintained advantageous trade and political relations with the despot Ben Ali.
/The recent blunders of some French ministers and ambassadors I commented on in my first letter show the hypocrisy of those who never fail time after time to give their assessments and instructions in modern democracy; no less telling is the position of the Socialist International on the repressions against the trade union leaders and activists in Tunisia. Alerted by ETUC, the Socialist International headed by Andreas Papandreu responded with… silence!?/;
Resisting the repressive rule within the country while abandoned by the international community is an incredible trial. /History repeats itself here too. I recall the story told by the late Dr. Petar Dertliev,who said that in 1944 the West failed the opposition in Bulgaria in much the same way, leaving it to suffer the outrages committed in the Soviet geopolitical zone/.
The test of fighting on one’s own in Tunisia was passed successfully by trade unionists and Islamists who were the only ones to stand against obscurantism. Surely that fighting tradition reinforced the strength of the new revolutionaries – the young generation of Tunisia.
The army comes second. What happened on 14 January in the capital of Tunisia has no analogue: the army refused to execute the orders of the dictator who was its commander-in-chief and still a head of state. The responsibility for this insubordination was taken by the Chief of Staff of the Army; consequently the general took another non-standard step: he refused to accept the suggestion that the army should be the driver of political change; when he was offered to join the public debate, he preferred to remain a military (a soldier of duty), rather than a politician. /Here the comparison with Bulgaria and a number of other countries in the post-Soviet region is definitely not in their favour; not to speak about the mass descent of ex-policemen at all levels of power in Sofia/;
Next comes the role of the trade unions. Today some blame them for collaborating with the old regime. Some others on the other hand are impressed with the fact that the trade unions were the only ones (unlike the other traditional organisations) that managed to “spontaneously” join the January revolution. UGTT provided shelter, sent groups in support, gave advice; when the decisive moment came, it organized a general strike. That is why the spirit of the Confederation is high today – with good reason.
My friend of many years Peter from Germany, with over 30 years of experience in field work with the local trade union movement, shared:
„What else can be expected from any trade union when it finds itself in a trap: a brutal regime on top and membership pressure in defense of social rights from the bottom. The only working method is to combine strikes with compromise”. Peter is right and the facts speak in his support.
Throughout Ben Ali’s rule there had been strikes and protests organized only by the trade unions. „That has been our tradition ever since the 20’s when trade unionism was born in Tunisia”one of the national leaders explained. „We were active both under colonialism and under Bourguiba. Not to speak about the battle of our regional and branch organizations during Ben Ali’s dictatorship”. Ben Ali himself did not like the trade unions and never appeared at any of their congresses. His salutatory address was met with loud booing when shown live on the television.
In the fourth place (but not in importance) is the history of the Islam movement. Religion also played a role in our case in eastern Europe, for example, in Poland and, partially so, in Bulgaria (with the so-called revival process in the middle of the 1980s). In Tunisia however the Islamists fought a life-and-death struggle with the regime. Without any respite!
The fact is that the Islamists survive despite the terror and inquisitions, imprisonment and exile. I am no expert in that area and cannot commit myself with assessments and predictions as to how will the Islamic cause evolve in Tunisia, and in what direction: in the direction of fundamentalism penetrating from the Persian Gulf or in the direction of the civil-religious pluralism most Tunisians dream about. In any case one cannot deny the moral stability and the merits of its veterans as soldiers of their religion. That will probably be their strong trump-card in the pre-election battle now beginning…
he point is that such a prospect is frightening for the majority of the Tunisian citizens. That s also my belief after my 8-day marathon of discussions in the capital Tunis. Particularly concerned (and active in the debate) are women, youths and liberal professions representatives.
The Tunisian society has been secular, with extensive rights for women and astonishingly high (even by European standards) civil and professional activism, even under the authoritarian regimes. That is why the “secular state-religious/political pluralism/democracy” choice seems the only acceptable one strategically. It is also the most promising choice, meeting the aims and fervour of the unique January revolution in Tunisia.
The social change does not follow a textbook. Nor does is obey any orders from a command center. That is why I do not believe in the conspiracy hypothesis to explain the Arab revolutions. Nor can I agree with the technocratic hypothesis, seeing these revolutions as an automatic projection of the digital technologies. There is something global and universal in these revolutions, but in my humble view that is their SOCIAL NATURE.
Today if one can speak about a Global Social Revolution, that is because its common denominator is the fight against injustice./
/ After several years of conversations with my friend Nikolay, a poet and historian, I would also add the fight against social inequality/
Ultimately injustice in any human communities – local, sub-regional and global – is always social; irrespective of whether it is about unequal distribution of wealth or about human/civil rights, or about corruption and surfeiting on power , or abuse of nature… The truth is that the agents and protectors of social injustice are always specific persons, circles, cliques, networks. It is also true that injustice in the Arab region has always been embodied by hereditary/tribal and party clans bringing people’s hatred to extreme forms. /A curious detail: Ben Ali’s wife and her family clan who misappropriated all lucrative sources of profit in the capital and in the countryside are the target of a more intensive hatred that the dictator himself! (If the will is there, one may also draw a parallel with the Bulgarian realities. Despite the revolution of 1989./
Today the drivers of the revolution are running on social fuel. „When the young educated generation has no chance of dignified work and decent income, of starting up a family, and on top of all it is deprived of the freedom to leave the country, you leave it with no choice but to rise in a rebellion against the rule”. That is how one of the political leaders in Tunisia explained the phenomenon of the “Revolution of Youth”.
Thoughts in Conclusion
I left the capital of Tunisia hours before the Coalition of the Willing attacked the positions of Kadafi’s supporters in neighbouring Libya. By the way, the subject of Libya was part of the daily debates during our expert mission. It is understandable – the situation in Libya as well as Algeria with their strong armies and rich oil deposits has always been an indicator of what is happening in Tunisia. Hopefully the western countries, EU and UNO, which have taken, with great delay, the initiative to protect the civil societies in the Arab region from new repressions and restoration of the dictatorial regimes, will come to realize Tunisia’s key role in this historical moment.
That small country does not need armaments or import of democratic models, but economic assistance and social support. I failed to see any coming. On his two-day visit Jerzy Bouzek, the President of the European Parliament, diplomatically refrained from answering the question if there was a chance of writing off or reducing Tunisia’s debt /as was the case with Poland back in the past, or with the partial reduction of the Bulgarian debt/.
My great concern is the condition of the economy, of the labour market and the social life in Tunisia. I am concerned that this topic will fall into the background in the course of the discussions. Most people I talked to asked me about politics. They dominate the public debate. Yet economy is above politics – that is my most important conclusion about the transition in Bulgaria and East Europe.
I failed to share that truth with my new Tunisian friends the way I should have done. Or to give them a warning that the neo-liberal doctrine replacing the planned “socialist” system in my country is the basis of inequality and injustice, of poverty and disenchantment facing most eastern European nations today.
Tunisia, Rome, Sofia