The psychology of revolutions, Part 3: Balance of power

By guest author Majed Ashy

It is important to understand the differences between revolutions occurring today and revolutions of the past.

Mural of uprising
Mural of uprising, in public domain.

In the past, limited technology and communication allowed for revolutions to be more local and their international effects to take time. In addition, it was easier to hide the bloodshed associated with some revolutions–or even not to record at all in history.

Today, the Internet and other advances in communication and technologies allow for instant recording and broadcasting, and in some circumstances, the biased presentations of events in order to inform or influence public opinion. Such developments transformed the international community into an interconnected one with events in one country having quick consequences in others.

This situation creates a delicate balance of power. Any rapid changes–positive or negative–in one country can change this balance and in turn require the involvement of other regional and international forces to slow or affect such developments. Thus, revolutions are not only shifts in the internal balance of power but also in the regional and global ones.

In the Middle East today, there are mainly two forces in conflict: one that believes in mixing Islam with politics (internal and international), and one that believes in the separation of Islam from politics (some call it the enlightenment era).

In Part 4 of this series, we will explore these two forces.

Dr. Majed Ashy is an assistant professor of psychology at Merrimack College and a research fellow in psychiatry at McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School.

The psychology of revolutions, Part 2: The case of Egypt

By guest author, Dr. Majed Ashy

Arab Spring collage
Arab Spring collage compiled by VOA photo/L. Bryant, Jonathan Rashad. Used under CC Attribution 3.0 Unported license. From Wikimedia Commons.

Following the 2011 Arab Spring revolutions, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups won the first elections, due to their long history in organizing and their experience in politics compared to the other groups. They were also aided by the fact that people wanted to stay away from the previous system.

These Islamic governments immediately started to apply their vision of an Islamic state to their whole nations without taking into account or understanding the power of the other partners in the revolution and without understanding that the supporters of the previous system were working against them.

The previous system is called “deep government” in the Middle East because it created systems and cultures that are so deeply rooted that it is hard for any government or revolution to make any fundamental changes.

Thus, in the Middle East—for example in Egypt–there are several competing visions for the future. Should the Middle East become a set of religious states or modern secular civilian democracies? Or should the old system of corruption and oppression continue in some form? Could it be true, as some people argue, that the old autocratic systems are the only ones that will work in the Middle East?

The revolutions that have been taking place in the Middle East are faced at this stage with challenging geopolitical realities both inside each country and internationally. People cannot escape from their history, cultural realities, human tendencies, or geopolitical environment.

I think the Middle East needs to understand the role of culture and history in their behavior. I believe that a successful government is one that does not exclude anyone and includes all visions of society in its steps forward. I think groups in the Middle East need to understand the politics of co-existence, power sharing, and respect for human rights.

Winning an election does not mean that a small group can use its powers to change the legal system and the government in ways that will guarantee its power forever, nor does it mean the winning group can take the whole nation in its own preferred direction without respecting the wishes of the masses and various interest groups in society.

Dr. Majed Ashy is an assistant professor of psychology at Merrimack College and a research fellow in psychiatry at McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School.

The psychology of revolutions, Part I

By guest author, Dr. Majed Ashy

There are at least two models for national development: evolution and revolution.

The Centennial of Independence by Henri Rousseau, 1892
Le centenaire de l’independance by Henri Rousseau, 1892. In public domain.

Evolution involves the gradual development of a nation over considerable time. It requires progress by both the government and the people in ways that address socioeconomic and cultural realities. It takes into account:

  • Principles of justice
  • Inclusion of society’s diverse members and groups
  • An understanding by both the people and the government regarding the basic concepts of human rights
  • Recognition of the importance of civilian governments standing at equal distances from all groups in society.

By contrast, revolutions happen when the government is rigid and biased towards certain groups in society. Revolutions are most likely when people feel stagnated socioeconomically and culturally in ways that reflect unfairness and corruption in the ruling parties.

Revolutions represent hope for radical changes in the system and society that will allow for rapid development and counter the times lost in stagnation. They tend to be motivated by popular hopes for justice, equality, and dignity. However, these hopes might conflict with the realities in society of some people motivated by personal greed, power, or revenge.

Among today’s Western European democracies, we can identify governments that were largely achieved through revolution as well as governments that emerged through a more evolutionary process. For example, the French government grew out of revolutionary activity that involved about 200 years of bloodshed, fighting between the partners in the revolution, wars with other countries, and counter-revolutions.

At the same time, England’s democratic system evolved gradually, without major internal revolutions, after the 1215 signing of the Magna Carta (The Great Charter of the Liberties of England), which imposed limits on the power of the king.

In recent years, the Middle East has seen several revolutions. There are two visions that joined hands in the Middle Eastern revolutions. The first vision pictures the Arab world as moving toward various versions of Islamic states; these states might be hybrid between some form of democracy and Sharia law. The second vision reflects a desire for a civilian secular government focused on respecting diversity, liberty, human rights, and socioeconomic development. These visions will be considered further in my next post.

For further reading, please see The Psychology of Revolution, by Gustave Le Bon.

Dr. Majed Ashy is an assistant professor of psychology at Merrimack College and a research fellow in psychiatry at McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School.

9/11 and just war

9-11 We Remember
U.S. Marines in Iraq remember 9/11. Image in public domain.

For most Americans, the words “September 11” continue to evoke fear, anger, distrust, and a desire to return to the way things used to be before we were attacked on our own soil.

September 11, 2011, we learned, to our horror, that we too, the golden people on the hill, are vulnerable.

In this blog, we have devoted several posts to just war principles.

Based on just war principles, can the attackers argue that the 9/11 assault on largely civilian sites in the US was justified?

We can say No in regard to many of those principles:

  • The attack was not undertaken as a last resort.
  • The attack was not committed by a legitimate authority.
  • The attack was committed in pursuit of a hopeless cause, which is considered not morally justifiable by just war principles. (Attacking the U.S. could be seen as a hopeless cause.)
  • Establishing peace was not the goal of the attack (as stated by Bin Laden himself).
  • The attackers did not discriminate between combatants and civilians; worse, they deliberately targeted civilians.

Whether the attack violated two other just war principles is a matter of debate. Specifically, for a war to be just:

  • It must have a just cause. Although some people around the world would argue that there was some truth to Bin Laden’s diatribe concerning American aggression against Muslims in the Middle East, the attacks were not undertaken to prevent or stop a genocide.
  • The violence inflicted must be proportional to the injury suffered. The death, pain, and destruction created by the attacks was tremendous. Was it disproportionately high in relation to any violence the U.S. might have been responsible for prior to the 9/11 attacks?

Finally, many proponents of just war principles in the U.S. (including President Jimmy Carter) have argued that the post 9/11 attack on Iraq by the U.S. was also not a just war.

As you consider the just war principles stated above, what do you think about this issue?  Was the US invasion of Iraq justified? How about the invasion of Afghanistan? How about US violence elsewhere in the Middle East since 9/11? Have these been just wars? If not, why is the US still killing people there?  And what are you going to do to stop it?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology