Over the past ninety days, and despite the preoccupation of millions of people with the daily developments in the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, Libya, and the movements in other countries calling for an overthrow of their regimes, the pivotal question remains: how did this happen? In other words, what force was it that was able to oust the Tunisian President in twenty-three days, and Egyptian President Mohamed Hosni Mubarak in eighteen days? What movement has made it impossible for Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to maintain full control of Libya in the face of a revolution that advances day by day, and a Yemen that witnesses a far from passive political uprising? The answer to such valid questions requires an understanding of the nature of any political movement that rises up against any existing political regime. Such a movement is bound to be strongly linked to the system against which it fights, and as such there is a similarity in what is done by political regimes and the reactions provoked by the acts performed by such regimes. In this context, no society can be considered superior to another, for there are factors that govern the dynamics of public opinion that all but unify the world in its past, present, and future.
Anyone who leafs through the pages of history can conclude that there are three factors governing any revolution, or action, striving to bring about change. These factors can hardly move through time and place without an individual or force taking control within them. These factors include: a level of individual awareness spread throughout the populace, with each of these individuals bearing a conviction in what is right and what is wrong. This awareness, however, remains without influence or effect so long as it remains confined to the individual level. Its evolution towards becoming a collective consciousness is the second factor that accelerates the movement towards revolution. Collective consciousness pushes its bearers to think about tools that can circulate this collective thought to the largest possible popular base, which in turn leads to thought about tools and means. The moment of consensus reflects the condition of collective consciousness; such consensus on major issues reinforces the collective consciousness, allowing it to form an actual movement; in other words, this stage in the process is distinguished by transition from the exchange of ideas into revolutionary action. The collective consciousness that is a mystery to some is based on a singular concept obscured by tyranny and tyrants: human dignity. Its forced absence has transformed it into a concept alien to Arab ears. This imposed absence was accompanied by the corruption of values standards and values to the point that all that was corrupting was extolled, while all that could bring betterment was feared.
With the growing collective consciousness, the act of thinking about tools becomes part of the state of ingenuity and creativity produced by this collective consciousness that seeks to restore human dignity. Many of the discussions that have accompanied the contemporary revolutions in Arab societies have focused attention on the various social networking communication tools (such as Facebook, Twitter and so forth). These arguments seem largely exaggerated when they posit these tools as being directly responsible for what has taken place and what continues to take place. The emphasis on tools while neglecting the major goals and objectives is a superficialization of the processes the Arab world has witnessed. The act of change is something that has been carried out over thousands of years by humans. Human consciousness is what leads humankind towards change, guiding them to innovate the requisite tools to bring about this change. The focus on the role of tools mirrors the discourse and ideas of the tyrant; tyrants always focus on the contempt for the role of the human consciousness that unveils the values of justice and dignity. They see the human as a tool with which to inflict oppression, a means and not an end, which exemplifies that the essence of the free human being as counterpoised to the tyrant.
If the communication tools are responsible for the current revolutionary condition, why did these tools not succeed in creating a similar condition in the same period in a country like Iran, the populace of which is considered experienced in rapid change. Iranians used social communication media in the protests that followed the 2009 presidential election, but this did not lead to the results witnessed in Egypt and Tunisia thus far. There are also communities living under tyranny, facing humiliation and indignity, day and night, and endowed with all the means of communication, but have not carried out any change, or at least there are no indications to this effect for the near future. These people exist in Asia, in Africa and even in countries classified as emerging economies. The consciousness formed in these societies has yet to move beyond the confines of the individual level, to specify the goals that the society will come together to achieve. As such, communications media will not bring about change in these societies. However, this is not to underestimate the role of such media as tools.
Such revolutions, however, were bound to happen in the Arab societies striving for the human dignity shrouded by dictators big and small, even in the absence of social networking media. The state of collective consciousness that was achieved and that was able to see its objectives clearly would have creatively conceived of ways to use any available means of communication. This dynamic collective consciousness that has pushed forward in setting goals and bringing about consensus on these goals is what guarantees the resilience of the revolutionary condition, despite the oppression carried out by despots and regardless of the sophistication or accessibility of communications media.
