There’s a standard Marxist critique of social upheavals and “revolutions” (whether they’re of color type or color-blind) that their very purpose and nature vis-a-vis the variegated popular demands will genuinely be understood not on the day of the revolution, on the very day the big political demands are put on big banners, placards and tiny fliers, rather on the “morning after.” In extension, on the day of the Event everyone is sort of excited to make an appearance in the “mural of the people” or else a “portrait of the majority”. This could be exemplified by the upheavals in the Maghreb Africa in the Spring of 2011. On the very first day of mob appearance on public squares, where they could unconditionally “demand” psychopolitical and socio-economic shares/pies in the national cake, with unprecedented access to “universal solidarity” (though every revolutionary act or event is a feverish and passionate act of the warm-blooded unemployed and hopeless youth) from all kinds of races, religions, classes and academic disciplines, everybody assumes the role of the “vanguard of the revolution”. There starts to appear that there’s a never imagined kind of solidarity among social cliques who usually are disgusted by the sight of their counterparts under normal circumstances, whereby the politics operates on “a room temperature”. At this stage of the popular revolutionary plague that’s yet to claim the lives of the “socially undesirable”, everyone knows democracy, demands it unconditionally and wants it come pronto. Here we’ll start to see the gradual appearance of selfies and memes on social networks – the usual suspect being Facebook- that comprises “intellectuals, activists, religious clerics, feminists and radical intellectuals like Slavoj Zizek (he had made a speech at the Occupy Wall St event in NYC).
But the real tragedy this “popular demand” (if it really is at all) comes after this shared delusion of political transformation through communist-style slogans, favorite colors and the hurling of “well-articulated insults” to the regimes in power. On the morning after, those who have already experienced sobriety ahead of the “unconscious revolutionaries”, literally start to flee the scene where this mayhem is taking place. They even begin to wonder they ended up in this “most unpleasant of moments.” They try their very hard to recall what really happened before this state of “political drunkenness.” They will go on “questioning their mislead conscience that unbeknownest drove them crazy to “ask such wrong questions and demand for such incorrigibly misled ‘democratic reforms’.”
It’s during this moment of political truth that revolutions start to experience impotence, that they start to crumble as if they’re house of cards left in the whirlwind. When the necks of the revolutions (the proxies of the real masterminds of the “demands for democratic reforms”, the elderly heads) start to fade out of the picture the whole mural selfie I was talking about starts to fade away like dandelions in the wind. At this very specific stage of the revolutionary fervour, the snake loses its head. The “universal solidarity movement” becomes the “solidarity movement of the poor, the angry and the angry.” Once this has taken place effectively, it’s time everyone on the scene, on the public square (of agitation and propaganda-led popular demand) the next scene is a horrifying one – everyone who didn’t flee the “epidemic” in time is left naked, unattended for. Whoever is left on this loneliest of places and events is an object of disgust and the carnage that’s yet to come progressively and of course, most expectedly.
Apropos of the commencement of this tragic scene, there explodes a proliferation of “analysts, journalists and most importantly ‘concerned gov’t officials'” trying to “address the immediate issue at hand ‘professionally, ethically and responsibly’.” The analyst start to blubber about the “appropriateness of the popular demand” citing the statistical reports of renowned “think-tanks, civil societies and accounts of ‘concerned activists” from the safer-ground, the relatively impenetrable (metaphorically, bullet-proof eclecticism) cupola. They even argue that the “the people know what they want” Expanding on this premise, they claim that “the people have defensible and justifiable reasons to revolt and demand for change.” But the problem here’s not the overflow of uncountable number of “analyses and analysts or political analysands”, it’s the part where you ask them the ridiculous question, “If you know this much why don’t you engage in it/involve in an event that you defined as “defensible and justifiable”? The answer is a numbing or better be called a deafening silence.
Simultaneously, the concerned people in power appear on gov’t media “outlets” and follow the trails left by the “analysts.” They repeat the dictum that “the people as a source of power to the gov’t in power have every right to revolt and demand for change “if their demands are not being properly satisfied by the regime in power”.” Nevertheless, they don’t end their “communique” where the “analysts” have ended. They take it a step further and higher, since they are “the experts in and the owners of the ultimate political power in the country with the primary duty of keeping law and order” they declare the need for an immediate law that asserts the “But phrase” as in “you can demand for change, but you’re not allowed to be violent, racists, separatists, homosexuals, infidels, terrorists, extremists…and so on!” Put simply, “You can say or do this or that, but we’re the only ones to get rid of your spectre with impunity”
By way of abrupt conclusion, 90% of the years before “free, fair and periodic elections” and “popular demands for democracy and good governance…blah blah” there is “no way the people could ever know what they want unless an “awareness is created among them” by externals agents of sorts or else organs of the gov’t in power.” And the year of the “national election” and the “unforgettably memorable Spring”, the spatio-temporal event that marks the true nature of the ritual – the morning after – the people are suddenly “endowed with the wisdom of knowing what they want and mechanisms to achieve them.” So in the end, the people are told, in the words of Sartre that, “The revolution you dream of is not ours. You don’t want to change the world, you want to blow it up.” In the final analysis, almost all revolutions are in this age of unbridled global capitalism that grants governments in power and “the agitated in the armed struggle” unprecedented access to weapons of mass-killings without clear objectives or else well-articulated class demands, there’s no way we could ever have true revolutions. We could only have social media sensations that are shown “the sympathy of the peace and democracy-loving masterminds of Western Democracy.” To paraphrase President Snow from “The Hunger Games”, “little hope is powerful, too much hope is deadly. Hence, excessive hope should be contained.” The “civilized” West gives to much hope to the desperate youth cognizant of its deadly potentials, while it should’ve been this kind of hope that should have been contained from metastasizing. They give the agitated youth the democratic youth, while the remedy is out of reach. They let the scapegoat talk too much about the Fukuyamaist dream (though in reality it’s a long forgotten dream by Fukuyama himself and irreversibly deadly delusion) that “democracy works for everyone.” That, “we should all be democrats at any cost. even at the cost of a whole generation and the efficient deployment of “mechanisms of instant democratization” like drone strikes, “democratic interventions”, support to armed oppositions, public square-oriented popular uprisings, foreign aids, assassinations, migrant crises, failed states…etc.