A Year of Change and Spontaneity

1 Comment

While winter is making its final tour of the great white north, leaving me with salt-stained jeans and slush-soaked cuffs, the rest of the world witnessed a rash of resignations – from Togo (Faure Gnassingbe), to Hong Kong (Tung Chee Hwa), to Lebanon (Omar Karami). In fact, the global community has recently been riding the wave of political change and electoral success – Ukrainians and Palestinians selected their respective leaders, while Iraqis began their process of rebuilding their country. This is certainly not the year for despots and dictators – if things proceed at the rate that they have already, 2005 may be known as the Year of Change.

One thing that seems synonymous with change (particularly the political flavour) is the presence of the crowd. Protestors in Lomé clashed with the police, objecting to the unconstitutional instatement of Gnassingbe’s replacement. Martyrs Square has been filled with Lebanese since the assassination of Rafik Hariri, calling for the end of Syrian influence and interference. There is something seductive about a focused crowd, intent on achieving its objective. It entices us on a primal level, sending shivers down our collective spines as the mob chants their incantations. Whether it is political, festive (outdoor concerts) or just plain destructive (riots following sports events), we cannot help but watch in awe at the power of the crowd.

Is this the exhibition of the power of the masses, that the gathering of people can affect change? Consider that a spontaneous protest not only requires a shocking event, but must manifest where there are deep-rooted sentiments. When the event is juxtaposed against the Zeitgeist, therein lies its birth. The Cedar Revolution has shown that the sudden gathering of people can make a difference.

One Comment (+add yours?)

  1. Prashant
    Mar 04, 2005 @ 17:30:00

    An intriguing post on many accounts but I have a couple of notable objections.

    For one, arguing that the Ukrainian populace ‘selected’ a leader couldn’t be further from the truth. Upon being offered an artificial choice between Western coercion and a Putin-backed strongman, they succumbed to the former. Their consent was, in other words, manufactured. The corporate media’s jubilant scenes from the streets of Kiev would, as usual, have us believe otherwise.

    So really, the despots seem to be doing just fine. It’s just that they’re starting to understand that the TV screen is so much more effective than the gun barrel as a tool of wholesale repression.

Leave a Reply