In Tunisia and across the Arab world what is happening is a clash between the youth and its dreams and ossified, stagnant elites, writes Azmi Ashour* The revolution in communications and information technology has precipitated profound effects on societies around the world. It has had a particular impact on the younger generations because of the way it has changed the primary sources that shape their intellectual formation. The Internet and its various social applications have created a single, transnational community and a new youth culture characterised by an extraordinary facility for communicating with others regardless of cultural differences and by new dynamic channels for handling their common concerns and problems. While the whole of the developed world and much of the developing world have been affected, there are certain marked differences between the two regions. In the countries of the South, the social changes -- where they occurred -- have had little impact on the ruling elites, which remain set in the authoritarian style of rule they have followed since the middle of the last century. Neither the democratic values of the developed world nor even the changing attitudes of the young as shaped by their new culture have made a dent on the mentality of the regimes. The result is the rise of two antithetical mindsets within a single society; one modern and open because it is armed with all the potential of the IT revolution, the other closed and unchanged after more than 50 years of military or police state rule. The contradiction is of the sort that can trigger conflict at any moment, should a segment of the young be struck by an overwhelming and intolerable sense of injustice. The uprising of Iranian youth in response to the fraudulent presidential election results in June 2009 was a prime example of the surfacing of the conflict between the aspirations of youth inspired by modern ideas and the traditional authoritarian mindset of the ruling elites. It appears that the situation is moving in the same direction in many Arab societies. During the past five years in Egypt, for example, waves of peaceful protest testified to the growing distance between the young and the stationary elite in power. Barely a day went by without a strike or a protest action of sorts. Nor did this spirit bypass the middle class, as represented by university professors, tradesmen -- such as truck drivers -- and even the normally powerless farmers. One of the factors that helped sustain these protests was that they refused to lend themselves to political or religious exploitation. The protesters did not subscribe to a particular political camp or movement, nor were they supported by religious or sectarian trends. The state, therefore, could not find a convenient avenue to distort their campaign and undermine it morally. It was patently clear that these were ordinary people who were in the right. Their anger may have been sparked by diverse causes but it had its roots in a combination of economic need and a sense of inequity. However, there are two incidents that occurred in both Egypt and Tunisia that are important for their significance. Although the incidents themselves might not appear out of the ordinary, the reactions they precipitated underscore the dynamics of the abovementioned conflict between two mindsets. The first was the death Khaled Said in summer. The cause of his death remains a mystery. Was it torture or a drug overdose? But what was particularly unusual about this case was that news of this death triggered a huge outcry in the public and the press. Overnight the Alexandrian youth had become a hero with more supporters than candidates for presidential elections. What explains this? The universal outpouring of sympathy for this young man and outrage at his death is indicative of a general inclination to believe the first account of the cause of his death. This in turn suggests the existence of widespread and systematic torture and growing public awareness of this phenomenon. The Khaled Said incident proved a watershed in that it triggered an open clash between conventional authoritarian mentality, as manifested by the practice of torture, and the new youth culture as embodied in virtual communities in cyberspace that utilise the powers of Internet communications to expose human rights abuses and to advocate justice. The second incident is the death of the young Tunisian who set himself on fire in protest against the government's obstruction of his efforts to earn a living. His act of desperation sparked protests against unemployment that spread throughout the country and gained such impetus that they brought down the government and forced the president to flee the country. The incident marked a precedent for Arab societies. Tunisia has one of the highest per capital living standards and education rates in the Arab world. Yet the recent wave of unrest there signifies that the people cherish freedom and the integrity of government more than material appearances, which to the angry young appear deceptive in any case. The same applies to Algeria with its huge oil revenues and with its widespread corruption and lack of transparency. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Tunisian protest wave spilled over into neighbouring Algeria where the rightful demand for dignity, the right to work, and wages that keep pace with inflation was taken up by the Algerian youth. Like the death of the young Alexandrian, allegedly at the hands of plainclothes police, the self-immolation of one Tunisian youth triggered a clash between two mindsets: a vibrant youth culture in a virtual world and a rigid and outdated authoritarian culture that is unable to accommodate to change, to institute substantial political reform and to realise true development that responds to the legitimate needs and aspirations of the new generations. One can not help but to wonder whether the ruling elites across the Arab world realise that society around them is changing and that the evolution is not in favour of their lifelong hold on power -- all the more so when their rule for perpetuity comes at the expense of civil and individual freedoms, social and economic development, and opportunities for employment and a dignified life. * The writer is managing editor of the quarterly journal Al-Demoqrateya published by Al-Ahram.
