For obvious reasons, anytime a group of people converge on any street, the first thought that rolls to mind is the Arab Spring. Sure, it will find its place in the history books as those months in the year 2011 that unraveled some the most entrenched leaders in the Arab world, and forced the rest of the conservative and ideologically unyielding politicians to rethink social reforms. But that was in North Africa.
A month ago, several hundreds of people took on Wall Street with the same commitment to civil disobedience and dissatisfaction with the status quo. “Occupy Wall Street”, the self-explanatory name that it took on suggests dissatisfaction with Wall Street [a representative of fraudulent big banks and supposedly sinister corporations squeezing the “common man” dry], and the “fat cats” who bet on global economic systems to the detriment of the rest of the world.
At least the emails that have found its way to my inbox tells me that I am one of the 99%, and that I ought to join forces to topple the 1%.
At least the emails that have found its way to my inbox tells me that I am one of the 99%, and that I ought to join forces to topple the 1%.
Trouble is, this 1% have no face, and unlike the Arab Spring, the protests seems to have a wide array of reasons for the discontent. Big banks are evil, abolish capitalism, socialism for all, fire Congress, impeach Obama, repeal DADT, boycott Chinese products, protect Unions,. . . and the list goes on and on.
Of course there are two sides to the story, and neither side is any less relevant, and both sides willing to make their point unequivocally clear on television, blogs, and to just about anyone who will listen. Any objective onlooker or participant will tell you that although it may have the semblance of the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street may not have enough momentum to become a true “American Fall.”
Sure, the protest has gained a global following, but unlike the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street have hundreds and thousands of sympathizers with very different motivators. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak was the target, and in Tunisia Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was the direct beneficiary of the collective anger. Libya was a bit tricky, with NATO forces doing the heavy lifting to oust Ghaddafi, perhaps because the Libyans themselves were far from unanimous opposition to Muammar Ghaddafi. My point? Occupy Wall Street’s lack of a leader and clear-cut end game makes it more of a platform for politicians eager to score a point in election polls than to become a catalyst for lasting economic reforms.
Truth is, when any group of people feels disenfranchised, marginalized, unfairly treated, bamboozled, or economically hoodwinked; they will sooner or later take to the streets. That’s not an Arab “thing”, that’s a human “thing”. What is important is to acknowledge the fundamental drama that brought the country to this point, petty bickering in America’s Congress, and politicians faithfully tracking opinion polls like contestants scrambling for votes on American Idol.
If Occupy Wall Street seeks to raise awareness about the role financial institutions played in the continued economic downturn of the global economy, it may have made its point. The tricky part is that unlike the Arab Spring, Americans have a fairly short memories and very personal interests.
There are some protesters who seek an egalitarian society, and want the wealth equally distributed. That in itself I a loaded statement, with many subjective meanings embedded into it, and unless protesters, government, sympathizers, politicians and onlookers can clearly define a feasible, attainable and fair end game, Occupy Wall Street will be nothing more than a forged replica of the Arab Spring without any of the lasting results.
Just a thought.
