There are many similarities between the protests around Gezi Park in Turkey and those of the Free Pass Movement in Brazil.
In both cases, initial demonstrations were small with 
specific objectives: to save the park and to obtain free public 
transport, respectively. And discontent in both countries reached a 
critical mass amid widespread perception that police used excessive 
violence to disperse the protesters. It was at that moment, on two 
continents, when tens of thousands of people mobilized in solidarity 
with the initial dissenters — and not just in Istanbul and Sao Paulo, the cities where the confrontations initially took place.
Given the relative indifference or initial hostility on the
 part of both public and private mainstream media, social networks are 
the preferred medium for protestors, and they serve as an effective 
space for coordination and decision-making. Of course, this preference 
to inform and organize is also dirven by the social and demographic 
profile of those involved. According to the polling institute Datafolha,
 the average protester in Brazil is relatively young with a high level 
of education, and the same is no doubt true in Turkey.
They also tend to be middle class, as measured by income 
level, and this segment of society has a disproportionately high level 
of Internet use. They are also more likely to belong to non-governmental
 organizations or to participate in new social movements, as opposed to 
having membership in more traditional, blue-collar organizations such as
 trade unions.
The same was true in the cases of Iran in 2009 and Egypt
 in 2011, but unlike them, Brazil and Turkey have democratically elected
 governments. These are societies in which the middle class represents 
the majority of the population. And that's the paradox. In a little over
 a decade under the Workers’ Party government, 40 million people emerged
 from poverty in Brazil. During the same time period under the 
government of the Party for Justice and Development, GDP per capita 
tripled in Turkey. And in both cases, a decade of relatively high growth
 rates came to an end in 2012. The economy grew just 3% in Turkey last 
year in contrast to 8.5% in 2011. In Brazil, growth last year was an 
anemic and 0.9% after the previous year's 4.5% before President Dilma 
Rousseff came to power.
When success breeds discontent
In both cases, the governments that contributed to the 
emergence of a strong, middle class are the targets of protests by this 
very population. Perhaps they fear for their economic and social 
well-being, and don't want to risk a return to the poverty they left 
behind after their countries' respective economic booms. History 
suggests that few things are more volatile than a middle class faced 
with the possibility of downward mobility.
Their decentralized nature, their disregard for traditional
 hierarchies, and their unwillingness to settle or even ally with 
political parties are often considered virtues of these new social movements.
 But these factors can also dampen their political effectiveness, which 
would be enhanced with organizational cooperation around shared 
priorities and a more diverse socio-ecocomic representation. The latter,
 in particular, is still missing in both Brazil and Turkey.
In terms of formulating shared priorities, when a correspondent for the Spanish newspaper El Pais
 asked the protesters in Brazil about their primary reason for being 
there, most hesitated before answering. And their ultimate responses 
were far from uniform. As far as I know, nobody asked the same question 
in Turkey, though in that case there seems to be an overwhelming and 
unmistakable common grievance: the growing authoritarianism of Turkish 
Prime Minister Tayyip Recep Erdogan’s government.
No comments:
Post a Comment