It's not so much an institutional structure, as a political (and social) organization that is capable of staking a forceful and persuasive claim to manage key institutional structures. At least that's what I learnt from the South African transition in the late 1980s to early 1990s. One of the ingredients was the existence of a "government-in-waiting", the African National Congress, with enough sway and popular support to be able to deliver on the main compromises that would underpin a settlement. That doesn't mean it has to guarantee delivery, but it's got to seem capable of delivering. A watershed moment for me (and there were many others, too, of course), was the ANC's deft handling of the immediate aftermath to the assassination of SA Communist Party leader Chris Hani in early 1993.
Others on this list might have other examples that refute my suggestion ... I'd like to hear them. Hein
On 10 Feb 2011, at 3:03 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
> [WS:] I am more skeptical - following Orwell's skepticism (see
> below). A
> mass movement can succeed only if it is backed by an institutional
> structure
> capable of governing a country. Without such institutional backing,
> it will
> be either squashed like a bug or else it will fizzle out like stale
> beer.
>
> In other words - the protesters will win only if they manage to
> capture the
> Egyptian state but it seems likely only if the military switches
> sides.
> Otherwise, the protest will end like the Polish Solidarity did.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
> http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/gandhi/english/e_gandhi
> "At the same time there is reason to think that Gandhi, who after
> all was
> born in 1869, did not understand the nature of totalitarianism and saw
> everything in terms of his own struggle against the British
> government. The
> important point here is not so much that the British treated him
> forbearingly as that he was always able to command publicity. As can
> be seen
> from the phrase quoted above, he believed in “arousing the world”,
> which is
> only possible if the world gets a chance to hear what you are doing.
> It is
> difficult to see how Gandhi's methods could be applied in a country
> where
> opponents of the regime disappear in the middle of the night and are
> never
> heard of again. Without a free press and the right of assembly, it is
> impossible not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a
> mass
> movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your
> adversary. Is there a Gandhi in Russia at this moment? And if there
> is, what
> is he accomplishing? The Russian masses could only practise civil
> disobedience if the same idea happened to occur to all of them
> simultaneously, and even then, to judge by the history of the Ukraine
> famine, it would make no difference. But let it be granted that non-
> violent
> resistance can be effective against one's own government, or against
> an
> occupying power: even so, how does one put it into practise
> internationally?
> Gandhi's various conflicting statements on the late war seem to show
> that he
> felt the difficulty of this. Applied to foreign politics, pacifism
> either
> stops being pacifist or becomes appeasement. Moreover the
> assumption, which
> served Gandhi so well in dealing with individuals, that all human
> beings are
> more or less approachable and will respond to a generous gesture,
> needs to
> be seriously questioned. It is not necessarily true, for example,
> when you
> are dealing with lunatics. Then the question becomes: Who is sane? Was
> Hitler sane? And is it not possible for one whole culture to be
> insane by
> the standards of another? And, so far as one can gauge the feelings
> of whole
> nations, is there any apparent connection between a generous deed
> and a
> friendly response? Is gratitude a factor in international politics?"
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 4:07 PM, Julio Huato wrote:
>>
>>> I am sure the regime's bag of tricks is huge, but this seems to me
>>> like the wishful thinking of the U.S. establishment.
>>
>> I hope you're right.
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk