By Douglas Anele

The title of our discourse is cloned from the book of Daniel, Chapter 5, Verse 25. According to the biblical story, Belshazzar, king of Babylon and son of the infamous Nebuchadnezzar, was enjoying a feast with his lords, princes, wives and concubines to celebrate “the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood and of stone.”

Then he “saw” a man’s hand write, “over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace” the words: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. Belshazzar summoned astrologers and soothsayers to interpret what he “saw,” declaring that any of them who succeeded “shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.”

The astrologers and soothsayers could not interpret the writing. At the prompting of his queen, the king summoned Daniel to interpret the handwriting on the wall. Daniel criticised Belshazzar for following the idolatrous footsteps of his father. He then told the king that the inscription means that God has numbered his kingdom, weighed the king in a balance and found him wanting, and has divided his kingdom and given it to the Medes and Persians.

What is the relevance of this ancient Hebrew story to the political upheavals sweeping across North African countries and the Arab world? Before we answer that question, it is pertinent to identify and contextualise the deeper meaning beneath the political tsunami in seemingly stable authoritarian regimes in those countries.

The political hurricane which later developed into a tsunami was ignited in Tunisia by the uncommon act of courage by a previously unknown commoner, Mohammed Bouazizi, in defiance and condemnation of the oppressive socio-economic system in his country.

The inhuman oppressive ruling class, in this instance, acting through a policeman, denied Mohammed the only means through which he eked out a subsistence living selling vegetables by confiscating his cart. Mohammed poured petrol on his body and set himself on fire. He died later in hospital. That seemingly inconsequential incident led to massive demonstrations across Tunisia against the government. President Zine el-Albidine Ben Ali fled to Saudi Arabia. The revolt had a domino effect. Just across the border, Egyptians, inspired by what happened in Tunisia, rallied for 18 days in Tahir Square demanding the exit of their sit-tight President, Hosni Mubarak.

In Libya, Bahrain and Iran, people have risen against the oppressive regimes but Libya’s case is getting worse daily, because Muammar Gaddafi has refused to listen to the voice of reason and abdicate. Rather, he has ordered his supporters and militiamen to kill protesters, thereby increasing the misery of Libyans he had ruled with iron fists for 42 years.

Therefore, the revolt in Libya is the bloodiest thus far among countries where the political status quo is falling apart in the Arab world. A lot has been said and written about the momentous events in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and others, especially as they relate to political and economic realities in the countries concerned. But little attention has been paid to the underlying philosophical and psychological dimensions of the revolts, which means that the deeper meaning of the process unfolding “before our very eyes” is yet to be appreciated.

Now, Frantz Fanon, in his book, The Wretched of the Earth, and Albert Camus, in The Rebel, dissected various aspects of the struggle against oppression and provided philosophical justification of violent rebellion. Extrapolating from the insights of these two radical thinkers, it is evident that the uprising in Tunisia and elsewhere reflect the unending human struggle against forces of oppression, injustice and subjugation, and signposts the desire for freedom, self-actualisation and improved standard of living which propel human development and social progress.

It also reflects the perennial conflict among different social classes in society, particularly between oppressors and the oppressed. Heraclitus of Ephesus was the first ancient Greek philosopher who made the cosmic ubiquity of change a central theme of his philosophy. The German philosopher, G. W. F. Hegel, took the idea of change to a new idealistic height by postulating dialectical logic through which the Absolute manifests itself in history from thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Karl Marx rebranded Hegel’s dialectics and gave it a materialist interpretation: he believed that class struggle is the engine that drives human history. The central thesis of these three philosophers is that reality, in whatever dimension, is characterised by conflict and change.

However, dictators and sit-tight rulers are afraid of change at the socio-political level and do whatever they can to arrest it. These people are particularly susceptible to paranoia, because they are intensely afraid of losing their privileged positions. This explains why such rulers tend to be extremely corrupt, and waste scarce resources on big monuments, palaces and fortified bunkers, relatively well-maintained armies, loyal law enforcement agencies to suppress dissent, and propaganda machine. Psychological profiles of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Josef Stalin indicate that dictators tend to be cowards. But they take extreme measures to cover their cowardice by presenting a false veneer of invincibility and strength. Incoherent tough talk, bravado, and visceral hatred of change are symptoms of cowardice. Hence, it should not be surprising if Ben Ali, Mubarak, Gaddafi and other despotic political dinosaurs are manifesting the classic syndrome of lack of existential courage in confronting the inexorability of change. Another point of interest is the role of contingent factors in bringing about rapid socio-political change.

To be continued.