Arab Spring Misread

The media in Europe and North America have been cheering the anti-government protests in North Africa and the Middle East as “a victory for democracy and freedom” and as “the beginning of a new era”. “A New Arab World” read the headline in Paris. Before toasting to this “new era” and risking disappointment by the time 2011 is over, people should take things into perspective and try to understand what is really going on there.
Looking at it from a culture perspective, we should realize that what is happening is actually not that new, nor will it necessarily lead to transformational change. As early as the 70’s, Geert Hofstede pointed out that, in “High Power Distance” (Hierarchical) cultures, changes in politics happen “by revolution”, while in “Low Power Distance” (or “Egalitarian”) cultures such changes happen “by evolution”. Research shows that Arab cultures score high on Power Distance (PDI=80). In the UAE PDI can be as high as 90, while in Egypt the researched score was 70. So we are definitely talking about High Power Distance (Hierarchical) cultures in North Africa and in the Middle East.
It’s important to note that the toppling of governments by popular revolutions is not something unprecedented in Hierarchical cultures. On the contrary, it happens rather often. By doing so, the Tunisians, Egyptians and Lybians are not “becoming more American”, or more “Egalitarian”; rather, they are confirming their respective national identities and their basic values, which are different from those found in the US and in Northern Europe. Basically, they are protesting against their governments which have failed to cater to their basic needs and aspirations. These basic aspirations are not “to install an American-style democracy”, not even “to choose their leaders in free elections”… Their basic aspirations are simply to have jobs that enable them to raise their families and give them a certain standard of living.
In a sense, what is happening in the Arab cultures is not very different from what has been observed in Latin America in the past century or two: strong, long-lasting government leaders facing revolutions that ousted them by force. The Americans even coined the derogatory term “Banana Republics” to label these Latin American countries in which governments were constantly changing through military “coups d’état”. Perhaps the Arab cultures are going through a similar phase. They don’t grow bananas in North Africa, so maybe the process is not linked to that fruit…
On the surface, the Arab and Latin American cultures seem very different: the external (visible) layers of culture are quite different. The traditional clothing, eating habits, music, religion and rituals are very different. The underlying values, however, are somewhat similar. Practically all Latin American, North African and Middle Eastern cultures are of the “Social Pyramid” type. Research has shown that they share high scores in Power Distance and in Collectivism (as the opposite of Individualism) and also in Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI). This is not anybody’s opinion, this is the result of statistically robust research conducted by different scholars in these cultures over the past 40 years. Anecdotal evidence merely confirms what research has revealed since decades ago.
The Fake “Facebook Revolution”
The story in the media is a very enticing one: millions of youths, connected by 21st Century technology, changing the world for the better. A wonderful story, that most of us (myself included) find very attractive. A sort of “hippie revolution” of the New Millenium, powered by social networks. As the Brazilian humorist Jô Soares used to say: “the only thing that would be better than that, would be if it was true!”
The truth is that, indeed, technology has made it possible for people to communicate much more easily and connect constantly. But technology did not drive the revolutions, people with guts did that. The enhanced connectivity made it possible to organize crowds much more effectively in Cairo 2011, compared to Paris 1968. It’s not just about Facebook, or Twitter, it’s about the whole infrastructure of satellites, mobile devices and the internet. And this infrastructure works for all parties involved: for the freedom protesters and for the police force repressing them, for terrorists and for the military. The technology is available to all, and even though in Egypt the government managed to shut down communications among protesters for a while, there are so many ways around such blockades, and economies are so dependent on the continuous functioning of this infrastructure, that it becomes impossible to shut down protests without simultaneously shutting down all of society.
The technology, therefore, accelerated the social communication processes. In 1968, it took days to get in touch with youths at the Sorbonne and get the numbers necessary to fill the streets. This can now be done in hours, instead. By the same token, repression technology is also much more advanced: police use tasers, high pressure water, they are better organized and more adept at mobilizing platoons than they were 50 years ago.
What has not changed are the underlying values. The values driving culture dimensions change very little over time, and in terms of national culture, 50 years is but the mere blink of an eye.
The cultures in Egypt, Tunisia, Lybia, Bahrein, Yemen, Morocco, Jordan, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia are still pretty much the same in terms of the underlying values, just like they also have remained quite the same in European and American cultures for decades. Mostly, the external layers of culture have changed; and it will be mostly the external layers of culture that will continue to change in the coming decades. The “inconvenient truth” in culture is that the underlying values change very slowly, even more slowly than the climate, because they are determined by the education of children. National culture values change only if the education of children changes. As long as families and schools continue to educate children in the same way, the underlying values of cultures will remain the same. As Belchior, a Brazilian songwriter of the 70’s lamented: “we are still the same, and we live just like our parents did”.
This does not mean that change is doomed. What it does mean is that change will happen according to the underlying values of each culture. Americans will continue to be Americans. Egyptians will continue to be Egyptians. And people will perceive others through their own cultural bias. We all see the world through the biased spectacles that were imposed on us as children by our own culture.
The Anglo-Saxons, the Dutch, Scandinavians and the Germans are all “biased” by their own cultures (like everyone is biased by their respective cultures) to see the world in terms of Low Power Distance, little or no hierarchy, flat social structures, egalitarian societies as an ideal; they also value Individualism and freedom, to the extent of abhorring government pretty much like the Anarchists used to profess in the 1900’s (the Tea Party movement in the US is the prime example). No wonder then, that when they look at the revolutions in Egypt and in other countries in North Africa and the Middle East, they perceive them as shifting towards their own values of individual freedom and equality.
I must disappoint them by saying that kicking Mubarak and/or Gaddafi out does not mean that Egyptians and Lybians are becoming American or German. They want the current leaders to be replaced by other leaders, of their own choice, but they still feel that some people in society should have more power than others (hierarchy) and should be entitled to certain privileges that accompany the greater responsibilities these people are burdened with.

Authority and Group Harmony
What brought down the dictators in North Africa was not the pursuit of less hierarchy and more individual freedom, but rather it was unemployment and the high price of food. People in a “Social Pyramid” want a strong, “undemocratic” government, as long as the situation allows them to enjoy a satisfactory standard of living. It is the Americans and North Europeans who have issues with authority figures, not the North Africans. People in the Arab world did not protest for democracy, they protested for better living conditions. When the situation worsens, they will take to the streets and replace their dictators with other, equally strong, powerful government leaders.
“Social Pyramid” cultures are also, by definition, collectivistic societies. This means that people belong to “in-groups” who take care of them in exchange for their loyalty. Group opinion is more valued than individual opinions, and group harmony (within the “in-group”) is a priority. When sufficient critical mass is mobilized, thousands quickly become millions, growing exponentially as we saw in Tahrir square. These millions may be crying out for freedom, but it is a different style of freedom. These people are not “Tea Party” advocates! They have formed one large group for the purpose of ousting the current leader, but they will revert to their usual group loyalties once the leader is replaced, and the large group will be fractured accordingly.
What we saw in Egypt was a fine example of a collectivistic society at work. As the crowds increased in numbers, more and more people raced to join them. The larger the crowds, the more people wanted to be part of that. And the way they handled the military was also a fine example of “Social Pyramid” values: avoiding confrontation, the crowds enticed the military to join them, to be part of the collective process. Also, the protesters had no problem in having the military take charge of an interim government (demonstrating respect for hierarchy). The issue was Mubarak and his allies, not the military per se.
A High PDI and collectivistic society does not mean that people enjoy being bullied by dictators; what it means is that people rarely voice their dissent individually (like they do in Individualistic cultures). Rather, they voice their dissent collectively, as a group opinion. Because they have a great respect for hierarchy, they will endure abuse from authority figures to a greater extent than people in Low PDI cultures; but there is a limit to what they will endure, and when that limit is crossed, people will gather in groups and not only “voice their dissent”: they will actually make a revolution and topple government.
None of this is “bad”, or “good”. It is simply consistent with the culture values of those societies.
“North-Westerners” may be surprised, but in two years time societies in the Arab cultures will look very similar to what they looked like in 2008, before the global economic crisis. The leaders may change, and some superficial aspects of culture will continue to change as they have been changing. However, the deeper aspects, less visible and related to core values, will change very slowly. The way people are managed, relationships are formed, business is conducted and communication is carried out, will continue consistently with each culture’s underlying values, and will only change over a longer time than we would normally expect.
Moving towards free elections in North Africa is certainly a change, there is no denying that. Looking at Latin America in 2011 and comparing it to 1911, anyone can see there have been changes. These changes, however, are more superficial than we think. The high respect for hierarchy is still there, much higher than in the US or Northern Europe. In the Arab World, a similar process is likely to occur: there will be changes, there will be more freedom. However, the basic values will continue to drive the way people behave at work, within their families, among friends, wherever they are. Changes in the political structures are much more superficial than we think, in terms of culture. The core values of a culture will only change very slowly, requiring a lot of patience.