First it was Tunisia, then Chile, Turkey and now Brazil. What do these street protests have in common in countries as different? Several things … and all are amazing.
Small incidents that become big. In all cases, the protests began with local events that unexpectedly become a national movement. In Tunisia, it all started when a young fruit vendor could no longer bear the abuse from authorities and immolated himself on fire. In Chile were the costs of universities. In Turkey, a park and in Brazil, the rate of buses. To the surprise of both the protesters and governments-those specific complaints were echoed in the towns and became widespread protests on issues such as corruption, inequality, the high cost of living or the arbitrariness of the authorities.
None of the governments of the countries where these protests have erupted was able to anticipate them. At first no government was able to understand the nature of those uprisings and was not able to cope effectively. The common reaction has been to send riot police to break up demonstrations. Some governments went further and chose to get the army into the streets. The excesses of the police or military violence further aggravated the situation.
The main surprise is that these street protests occur in economically successful
countries. The protests do not have leaders or chain of command. The demonstrations rarely have an organizational structure or clearly defined leaders.
Eventually some of the protesters are appointed by others -or identified by journalists, as spokesmen. But these movements organized themselves spontaneously through social networks and text messages, but do not have formal leaders or traditional command hierarchy. There is no one to negotiate with. The informal nature, spontaneous and chaotic collective protests confused governments. Who negotiate? Who make concessions to appease the anger on the streets? How to know if those who appear as leaders really have the ability to represent and bind the rest?
It is impossible to predict the consequences of the protests. No expert foresaw the Arab Spring. Until shortly before the sudden ouster Ben Ali, Gaddafi or Mubarak were treated by analysts, intelligence and media as untouchable leaders whose hold on power took for sure. The next day, those same experts explain why the fall of these dictators was inevitable. In the same way that it was not known why or when the protests start, no one knows how and when they would end, and what its effects would be. In some countries the protests have toppled governments. This is not the case in Brazil, Chile and Turkey. But there is no doubt that the political climate in those countries is no longer the same.
The main surprise is that these street protests occur in economically successful countries. Tunisia’s economy has been the best of North Africa. Chile is a leading economic world development model. In recent years it has become commonplace to qualify Turkey as “economic miracle”. And Brazil not only has lifted millions of people out of poverty, but has even achieved the impressive result of reducing inequality. They have now a larger middle class than ever. So what? Why take the streets to protest rather than celebrate? The answer is in a book that the American political scientist Samuel Huntington published in 1968: Political Order in Changing Societies. His thesis is that in societies undergoing rapid change, the demand for public services is growing faster than the ability of governments to meet it. This is the gap that takes people to the streets to protest against the government. And others justified encouraging protests by: the prohibitive cost of higher education in Chile, the authoritarianism of Erdogan in Turkey and the impunity of the corrupted in Brazil. Surely, in these countries the protests will subside. But that does not mean that the causes will disappear. The Huntington’s unbridgeable gap. That gap, which produces political turbulence can also be transformed into a positive force that drives progress.
