The historic founder of the People’s Republic of China, Mao Tse Tung, wanted to become a history schoolteacher. He did not succeed and ended up as a librarian with plenty of time to read up and reflect on history. Since I was briefly a history teacher, and my father was a University librarian, I have a soft spot for Chairman Mao. Not necessarily for how he tried to change history but for his observations of it.
However, when it comes to the French Revolution of 1789, and which shook Europe, I prefer to look elsewhere. Asked about what he thought of it, Mao famously replied it was still too early to say! (The observation is sometimes also attributed to Chou En-Lai.) To my mind, though, the sharpest observation of that revolution was made by the controversial French historian Jules Michelet, author of a famous history of France, who was born only nine years after its start.
Michelet argued that revolutions take place not when things are going from bad to worse but when things are getting better. He was, of course, quite right.
Why, after all, did the 1789 revolution take place in France and not elsewhere? Conditions were much worse in practically all the other countries of Europe. In some places, serfs were still tied to the land in humiliating ways.
France, however, may be interpreted as having been undergoing a change that was improving the prospects of the middle class. It is true the French state was crippled by a massive debt, which the king tried vainly to address through taxation. It is true a failed harvest and hunger fuelled the protests. And there was plenty of resentment of the king, the queen and the aristocracy.
The nobility was not seen as fit for purpose. It appeared to be adding to the burdens of the state. It seemed dysfunctional.
However, it appeared that way because the prospects of the middle class were improving. They could see themselves having a greater and more successful say in the government of the country. Michelet’s point was that, for all this, their prospects were not improving fast enough.
Michelet may have lived in the 19th century but his theory is still applicable today. I believe it can help us understand what is happening across the Arab world right now, especially why it is taking place in Arab countries which are less conservative.
What took place in Tunisia, and what is taking place now in the streets of Egypt and in a number of other Arab countries, is not being fuelled mainly by the least well-off sectors of society. Rather, what we see are movements in which teachers, doctors and lawyers are actively participating.
I had the occasion to observe this phenomenon some years ago elsewhere in the Arab world. When I first met the representatives of Hamas, in the Palestinian territories, they were not yet a political movement. However, they were socially very active and organised. The “activists” I met were highly trained doctors and dedicated nurses who were providing their services to the needy for free.
I remembered Michelet’s theory of revolution when, last week, the European Parliament voted a resolution on Tunisia. It will continue to weigh on me when the Parliament next votes on Egypt. The reason is that Michelet’s theory does not just explain why the events happened the way they did. It warns us of how things might still turn out in the future.
It is not enough for Europe to acknowledge, accept or even support the popular protests against political systems that do not allow them enough liberty or generate enough prosperity.
Simply championing reform and economic progress might, in fact, lead to further protests and perhaps even ease the way for the political victory of some radical group. As Michelet might say, if we are not careful we might end up almost encouraging further radicalisation if progress is experienced but not fast enough.
Whatever initiatives we support, therefore, whatever processes we decide to strengthen, must be calibrated carefully to meet expectations. We should think carefully about policies that may generate prosperity but at the cost of some social upheaval.
Indeed, Europe may need to consider seriously whether the new Arab world that is being born requires Euro-Arab cooperation programmes to be reborn as well.
Dr Attard Montalto is a Labour member of the European Parliament.