On May 15 the popular reformist, who served briefly as interior minister in the early days of the caretaker government, was forced to issue an apology after warning ten days earlier that the army was prepared to take power if Nahda, the country’s main Islamist party, won the July 24 nationwide vote.

"Wikileaks has become a source of information in the Arab world, because of a lack of transparency," Hasni Abidi, director, Centre for Studies and Research on the Arab and Mediterranean World (Cermam), Switzerland, said.

From May 1-3, in a hotel in a chic area of the capital, Tunis, the foreign ministry will work out a “global support strategy for democratic transition”, an aim adopted by the government last month.

This is essential and not before time, according to Hasni Abidi, director of the Geneva-based Study and Research Center for the Arab and Mediterranean World.

“Western democracies must urgently review their strategies for countries south of the Mediterranean,” Abidi told swissinfo.ch.

“Like its neighbours, Switzerland supported the majority of authoritarian regimes in the region in the name of the fight against terrorism and stemming streams of migrants. This line has been shown to be weak, not to say counterproductive.”

H. Abidi : Le régime de Kadhafi est sur le départ. Quelle que soit l'évolution immédiate
de la situation en Libye, c'est une donnée avec laquelle il va falloir compter. Car il
a perdu le socle sur lequel il était construit. Ce ne sera pas facile en raison de la complexité
du terrain et d'un pays où l'insurrection ne semble pas avoir le moyen de le renverser
rapidement. Mais c'est une donnée sérieuse que les Occidentaux veulent accélérer
pour éviter l'enlisement et que le «guide» tire profit d'une situation où les «dommages collatéraux» comme on dit peuvent retourner leurs opinions. Kadhafi qui veut gagner du temps, table sur le pourrissement et la
partition du pays. S'il parvient à rester dans son bunker de Tripoli, il peut toujours accuser
l'insurrection d'être responsable du démembrement du pays.

"Unlike Egypt and Tunisia, Libya is made up of tribes, clans and alliances," said Saif al-Islam, the son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, in a televised address on Sunday evening during which he warned Libyans of the threat of civil war.

Though the importance of tribal affiliation has eroded as work and education have drawn Libyans away from their native regions, a significant portion of the country’s population still claim some identification with a specific tribe.

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi himself, despite maintaining an anti-tribalism stance for most of his political career, has relied on simmering tribal rivalries to tighten his grip on power. This has been particularly true within the military, where all major tribes are represented.

Tribal ties are also said to influence whether or not Libyans succeed in securing certain jobs.

But tribalism has little concrete impact on the Libyan political system. Gaddafi’s government is, for example, composed of people from various tribes.

MAIN TRIBES OF LIBYA

Warfallah – Libya’s main tribe; said to count 1 million people.

Magariha – Second largest tribe; close to Warfallah; tribe of Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.

Al Zintan – Close to Warfallah; from the town of Zintan, south of Tripoli.

Qadhadfa – Muammar Gaddafi’s tribe; controls the air force.

For me, much of what unfolded during the election day was preceded by month of campaigning, ranting, manifestos of electoral speeches held by those candidates who could afford thousands of Jordanian Dinars to attract voices or let me more specific to ‘buy people’s voices’ not hearts. Around 700 person ran for 120 seats, 15 political parties participated of the 18 existing in the country, 2 opposition parties boycotted the elections for 2010. The prominent opposition party the Islamic Action Front, Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm boycotted of the 4 opposition parties participating only 1-candidate secured seat through women quota. To be honest, the lingering question paints itself, ‘Is this real shape of democracy in one of what is considered liberal states in the Middle East, by not having real opposition to practice its right on the ground?’

Headlines read throughout the day: “arrests taking place, armed men crashing polling stations, threats by thugs, forged IDs and voter fraud as indicated by the National Centre of Human Rights in Amman”. This questioned the hidden meaning of this election and the integrity of the voting process.

At the end of the day results were calculated out with voter turnouts accounting to 53% and 34% alone in the capital city of Amman. 120-body legislatures were elected with no significant political opposition as was the case in last election in 2007. It is difficult to determine the extent to which the government carried out the elections, where they conducted in order of fairness and/or responsibility in contrast to the established norms of ‘democratic processes with the pressing need to have a separate independent arm’s-length body to carry it.

What characterizes this election its “pro-government” and “loyalists” body which offers fair light from the results that those occupying the incoming assembly are almost if not totally pro-government, tribal loyalist body that will offer little-to-no opposition to government policies. Fair conclusion, would say that government has gotten its will and by building small body of government where and sealed approvals of the people to be used at its will. If that’s so, then don’t expect any kind of agenda, policy or platform that will going to be promoted and put forward against the say of the state!

For me names, numbers and districts is not important to deduce results, but what is embodied inside the new parliament; 120-body legislatures who are not the sole representation of the will of Jordanians.
To sum out some of the aspects led to the failures accompanying this election; the missing role of the political opposition parties, the quota system, empowered sense of tribalism, electronic blackouts on election day, violence during voting process, the widespread vote buying in urban areas like Amman and Zarqa. And subsequently, the new election law- the 2001 one vote one man law. Not to mention that are no absentee ballots only those from inside the country. What has this one-vote system achieved when the voter must give his/her one vote to one person usually that person is relative?

To highlight two interesting, yet ironic realities that are linked to this very topic for what they hold as importance to the national identity; the economic aspect of the election campaign is one example.
I won’t dare to measure the expenditures that accompanied the campaign season, but to begin with are those candidates who ran independently and who got to spent tens of thousands of dinars. Most of the money went for tents rented every night to hold their electoral speeches in, not to mention food, transportations, and chair rentals for 30 days costing over 1000 JDs. Then comes the advertisement part, designing and printing zillions of posters, banners to business cards and leaflets to CDs. Suffice to say, it’s good to know many made a living during this time to promote a candidate. Not to mention the vote buying with quotations as high as 150 JDs per vote. And now in parliament, candidate salaries-as based on last account of salary raises-will receive around 4,500 JD/month. With 120 members, the total received salaries will amount to roughly 540,00JD/month or 25, 920, 000 JD for the entire 4 year term (if my calculation is right in this case.)

So the cliché question to ask the government of Jordan, “From where did you get all of this money?”
The second reality that highlighted the aftermath of the elections was when one of the running candidates was arrested and detained awaiting trial in the military-bound State Security Court; the same judicial body that is made p of military judges and tries people for crimes like treason and terrorism. Apparently, manifestos published by most candidates were being tracked and closely watched by the government. Taher Nasser, a 45 year old Jordanian lawyer and who lost in the elections, his crime is because he called for “the equal treatment of all Jordanians under the law, as provided in the constitution”, a crime that has been deemed by the state as “undermining national unity” and “stirring up sectarian strife”. Nasser’s detention is latest in a string of arrests and prosecutions for speech protected under International Human Rights Law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which Jordan ratified in 1975, even though amended its penal code it kept numerous articles criminalizing peaceful speech, according to Human Rights Watch.

So the question that begs itself, is speaking about discrimination and identity a taboo in our society that even discussing it is considered a crime? Is our government a self-polished one that won’t accept self-criticism?
With the new parliament in place, to what extent do we see a real and meaningful representation for all Jordanians in this assembly? Are we expecting parliament to now review, amend or turndown policies issued by the government? Will the issue of raising political awareness, role and maturity of the political representation and the lack of transparency and integrity be raised and discussed? Not to forget the status of media in all of this?

-- Samia Qumri
Associate researcher at CERMAM

There were violent clashes in Cairo on Wednesday between opponents and supporters of President Hosni Mubarak as the Egyptian government rejected international calls for the leader to end his 30-year-rule immediately.

The army did not intervene, other than to fire shots into the air, and no uniformed police were in sight. However, government opponents say the Mubarak supporters were mainly either policemen out of uniform, or people who had been paid to demonstrate for the president.

The violence was the worst in the nine-day uprising against Mubarak, leaving several hundred injured, apparently by stones. A soldier was reported dead after falling from a flyover.

Mubarak went on national television on Tuesday night to say he would not stand in elections scheduled for September, but this was not good enough for the protesters, who demanded he leave the country immediately.

The protests broke out last week as public frustration with corruption, oppression and economic hardship under Mubarak boiled over.

Thousands of lawyers went on strike in Tunisia on Thursday, a week after a police crackdown on protests against unemployment. A Tunisian graduate whose suicide attempt last month set off the initial protests died on Wednesday.

Mohammed Bouazizi, 26, set himself on fire in front of a government building in the central town of Sidi Bouzid, saying he was driven to the act after police confiscated his fruit and vegetable cart because he did not have the necessary permit.

Trade unionists said more strikes, protests, even attempted suicides took place in other parts of Tunisia on Thursday. Demonstrations against the Tunisian government were reported in Geneva (100 people), Lausanne (15), Paris (200) and Montreal (60).

swissinfo.ch: What is the nature of this protest movement?

Hasni Abidi: The scale of the protests is unprecedented in Tunisia’s recent history. And as students return to school and university it seems to be spreading. The regime’s biggest fear was to see schoolchildren and university students getting involved in the protests – and this is now happening.

Today there is a spiralling of protests and rebellions not just in the town of Sidi Bouzid where the protests started, but in other cities and among other groups of people.

swissinfo.ch: Has the protest movement wider support in Tunisia?

H.A.: The young jobless man who set fire to himself has become a symbol of general discontent. The young people demonstrating today are showing the government and other Tunisians that President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali’s regime – viewed as stable and secure – is not invincible. With their bare hands these young people are making a breach in the regime’s police forces, which are seen as ruthless.

This is unique. The Tunisians are no longer afraid of this police state. But there is one major uncertainty – the capital, Tunis. If things start happening there and we see street protests, the regime will face a very serious challenge to its authority.

swissinfo.ch: In the past the Tunisian regime has suppressed all forms of organised opposition. Are these protests likely to last?

H.A.: The government has complete control over the media and the political scene. The Tunisian parliament has become a place that simply rubberstamps decisions. The regime has blocked citizens from access to all forms of support or expression, effectively silencing them.

The recent protests do not have a political agenda, neither are they backed by any real leaders. This is dangerous for the authorities as they don’t have anyone with whom they can meet and discuss.

The ageing regime, which is divided even within the Ben Ali clan, is losing touch with Tunisian society. It can no longer simply make cosmetic changes, as it has done in the past.

swissinfo.ch: For a long time Tunisia has emphasised its economic development to make its limited freedoms more acceptable. Is this the end of the road for this model?

H.A.: These protests mark the end of the “Tunisian economic miracle”; for years the country has been presented as a brilliant IMF student and received considerable support from many European heads of state.

The protests, which are essentially on economic and social grounds, highlight the fact that Tunisia’s development has only benefited a small number of people in power or its inner circles. That’s why people are fed up right now.

Economic and social rights are closely linked to political rights. In all the recent protests there have been demands for more freedom, democracy and transparency.

swissinfo.ch: What are the immediate consequences for the Tunisian regime?

H.A.: It all depends on how the authorities manage the revolt and how far the movement spreads, especially to Tunis. Another question is whether the president intends to stand again in 2013.

This protest movement is creating bigger divisions within the regime. It’s likely that inside, certain factions will try to take advantage of these demonstrations to score some points against their rivals.

But it is also possible that the regime calls them terrorist threats to distract and snuff out the protest movement – a classic ploy by governments in the region.

--Frederic Burnand, swissinfo.ch
Adapted from French by Simon Bradley

Through the media, the victory in this match and the one which had preceded him in Cairo, has been transformed - as Amr Elshobaki brilliantly demonstrated in his article in the Egyptian newspaper Al Masry Al – Youm about the medias failure – not only in respective provocations, but also in a matter of and national victory and national prestige not to say dignity. In Egypt, for example, an extraordinary quantity of national songs invaded the radio as well as the television, transforming in the collective mentality, a single sports event in a day of national dignity. Thus, in societies extremely frustrated and living under the burden of authoritarian regimes that have failed to achieve real progress, the victory in a game as popular as soccer easily turns into a national accomplishment, though fictitious. Thus, both governors and governed agree to give the same illusionary though relieving meaning to the same event: For those in power, it is the quest of a degrading legitimacy, for the people, it is the arduous desire to get back a lost feeling of pride. Worth noting that, the President of the Egyptian Republic made, just before the first game, an exceptional visit to the Egyptian players to encourage them, marking a transposition of their victory to a national victory and then an implicit transfer from sports to politics.

In this context of a perverse media impact - especially those of Egypt- of mobilization and strong war spirit nothing then senseless, that an event occurred to trigger the drama: Some stones were thrown at the Algerian players’ bus in Cairo, in the first match. An event which, though condemned in any case could last without dramatic consequences, if the Algerian media and under the approving eyes of the Algerian regime, have not exploited it. The revenge was violent: Some Egyptian companies in Algeria, the head of which "Orascom" were burned and the Egyptians working there (whose number attaint around 4000) were asked to leave the country. Thus, a highly mobilized people for an illusionary cause and losing the notion of what constitutes a «rule of law» have decided to take revenge. If the popular reaction was too brutal, the Algerian regime's reaction was strange. The latter not only refrained from any intervention to settle the problem, but it asked the owner of "Orascom" for the taxes by back effect, thus showing a certain complicity albeit partially. Thus, for the regimes of the two countries, the transposition from sports to politics was only to please.

The day of the match arrived in Sudan, and to crown all, the Algerian public, which was transported in the Algerian state military as well as charter planes, armed with knives bought from Sudan, did not hesitate to pursue the Egyptian public. The later has certainly had one of the worst hours of his life before reaching the airport of and return. Several were wounded. The huge and violent demonstrations have taken place and continue to take place in several Egyptian governorates, especially in front of the Algerian Embassy in Cairo. No essays were established by both regimes to defuse this crisis. Seems and for another time that the crisis paired with the powers of the two countries as beneficial rather than harming. But how to understand the vast and violent reaction of the Egyptians, especially the youngest among them? These reactions are rather the product of the humiliation they live each day and in a continuous manner under the rule of an authoritarian regime. The cry of a woman at Cairo airport, returning from Sudan, states that reality: “We were humiliated in Sudan, we were really humiliated, and how not to be, if we already are in our country?” Certainly, the establishment of a demonstration as a way of expressing peaceful protest was quite legitimate; however what was unacceptable was the violent form that it had taken, especially with the launch of "Molotov" and the burning of the Algerian flag. These Egyptian demonstrators like their Algerian counterparts that are feeling humiliated in their daily living, have lost the sense of what is the “rule of law” as its absence is really visible. Hence, they have consequently chosen to take revenge in this brutal and violent manner. This loss of confidence in a political regime that could protect the dignity and rights violations is what led to this violence. This is what an Egyptian demonstrator has just launched: "If we do not tear our rights, nobody will respect us now." The reaction of an auditor of the Egyptian president's speech a few days after this tragedy states the same idea: "Please repeat the phrase you just said: The dignity of the Egyptian citizen is the dignity of Egypt".

Hence, if the sports event is completed, however, the misfortune and hatred it caused will take time before a cure can be established. Remains to ask ourselves: What future for societies whose people live an extreme repression? What future for people, who increasingly lose the notion of "rule of law", as it is doomed to disappear?

Nadine ABDALLA
Phd researcher at 'Institut d'Etude Politique (IEP) de Grenoble, France, Research Internship at 'Institut d'Etude Politique de Lausanne, Lausanne University (Unil) and Reseacher assistant associates to CERMAM