Over the past several years, rising powers have been rocked by popular protest movements. India saw massive protests in 2011 over corruption and the unwillingness of authorities to address it, and India’s youth were spurned into action by the perpetual scandals of the ruling politicians. More recently, Turkey and Brazil have been jolted by protests instigated by seemingly mundane events. The proposed construction in a historic Istanbul park and a modest increase in bus fares in Brazil’s cities are unlikely triggers for nationwide protests; nevertheless these events initiated massive protests in each country.
The unrest in emerging powers erupted for a variety of reasons, but reflected the disillusionment of the young with the political classes. These movements have shown the power of technology as an organizing tool, and demonstrate that economic growth alone is not enough to satisfy a well-informed and dissatisfied public. The combination of technology and people no longer content solely with economic growth alone gives these protests relevance to numerous developing countries, and these movements represent a profound challenge to governments across the globe.
The protests in India and Turkey each had different triggers, but both spread due to middle-class rage with the governing class. Corruption has been rampant in India for decades; however, it has particularly come into the limelight recently as several multi-billion dollar scams have been revealed over the past several years. Protests began in Delhi and spread to over 50 cities and towns. Millions more supported the movement by participating in online and virtual campaigns in support of anti-corruption measures. The current generation of 20- and 30-somethings who took to the streets rejected the apathy of their parents’ generation, challenging the status quo and demanding change.
Protesters in Turkey were driven by varying motives. What united the disparate group of protesters was opposition to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's policies, which they see as a threat to traditional Turkish secularism. Like the protests in India, the protests in Turkey have been driven by pressing political issues and the strong desire of youth—especially middle class youth—to have their voices heard.
Bus fare increases of 20 centavos (nine cents) in major Brazilian cities have caused the most widespread protests in the country in decades. While the fare hikes were unpopular and outraged many over the cost of a shoddy public transportation services, this alone does not explain the protests. Brazilians pay over 30 percent of their incomes in taxes, which is among the highest for developing countries. Public services, from infrastructure to medical care, are seen as subpar, leaving many to question where their money is going and why the government requires such high levels of funding. Perceptions of corruption and poor governance have led people to take to the streets. Economic growth is not enough for the public; the people want more than what their elected leaders are offering.
This reaction in Brazil should trouble other emerging countries the most. Brazil is widely seen as a country on the rise. It is the dominant power in South America, and like India, Brazil earned inclusion in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). The Brazilian economy has been steadily growing and has lifted millions of people out of poverty and into the middle class. Brazil is the host of the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics—events that were supposed to serve as a coming out party for the South American giant. If mass protests can erupt in Brazil, it can happen anywhere.
One of the factors that has enabled protests to spread is technology. In an era of 24-hour cable news, Facebook, and Twitter, isolated events that once would have taken hours, days, or more to reach a population can spread instantly. In the past it would be difficult to quickly rally people and instigating events could blow over. Now the youth are able to communicate quickly, share grievances, and mobilize in a way the older generations of political elite struggle to understand. Technology has leveled the playing field and taken away the advantages politicians once enjoyed. State-run media may not cover protests or the causes that inspire them, but protestors updating Facebook and Twitter can reach a wider, like-minded audience and bring them into the streets.
Many authoritarian countries have counted on economic development to placate the public and minimize dissent. Leaders in these countries contend that economic development is more important than democracy or greater individual freedoms and that they are the only ones who can deliver a growing economy. China is the most prominent country in this category.
The governing Communist Party’s (CCP) legitimacy is now tied to economic growth rather than maintaining communist doctrine. The notion that expanding economic opportunity is no longer sufficient to satisfy the public is something the Politburo will find alarming. If a democratic country with a growing middle class can have a spontaneous eruption of protests, as has been demonstrated by Brazil, Turkey, and India, the implications for an authoritarian country is far more concerning.
In China the Communist Party runs everything and holds total power. Therefore, all complaints held by the public are directed at the CCP. A popular protest movement triggered by a small event could quickly spread to other groups with grievances and easily morph to challenge the legitimacy of the ruling authorities. This is a nightmare scenario with no easy answers for Beijing. There is no turning back on free market reforms, which has led to rampant economic growth; on the other hand, turning to more strident nationalism could quickly grow beyond the control of the authorities. If nationalist sentiments soar among the public it could limit the options of leadership in a crisis with Taiwan, Japan, or the U.S. Maintaining tight controls on internet access and information have become a matter of survival for the CCP—and an ever more important issue in light of recent global protests.
The results of the protests in India, Turkey, and Brazil remain to be seen. In India, the politicians ignored the demands for anti-corruption legislation and the protests fizzled over time. The public may yet get the last laugh in upcoming elections as the ruling Congress Party faces the prospect of running against the incorruptible Chief Minister of Gujrat Narendra Modi. Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s use of riot police to forcibly remove protesters could impact the future ambitions and legacy of Turkey’s transformational leader. The protesters in Brazil are amorphous and leaderless, but their complaints have already caused the popularity ratings of President Dilma Rousseff to plummet. With the tools of the digital era at their fingertips, youth have shown that they are a force that must be taken seriously—and governments who do not will do so at their own peril.
Vineet Daga is an independent foreign policy writer. He has a BA and MA in international affairs from The George Washington University.
Photo: Fernando H. C. Oliveira (cc).
a global affairs media network
The Kids Aren't All Right
October 8, 2013
Over the past several years, rising powers have been rocked by popular protest movements. India saw massive protests in 2011 over corruption and the unwillingness of authorities to address it, and India’s youth were spurned into action by the perpetual scandals of the ruling politicians. More recently, Turkey and Brazil have been jolted by protests instigated by seemingly mundane events. The proposed construction in a historic Istanbul park and a modest increase in bus fares in Brazil’s cities are unlikely triggers for nationwide protests; nevertheless these events initiated massive protests in each country.
The unrest in emerging powers erupted for a variety of reasons, but reflected the disillusionment of the young with the political classes. These movements have shown the power of technology as an organizing tool, and demonstrate that economic growth alone is not enough to satisfy a well-informed and dissatisfied public. The combination of technology and people no longer content solely with economic growth alone gives these protests relevance to numerous developing countries, and these movements represent a profound challenge to governments across the globe.
The protests in India and Turkey each had different triggers, but both spread due to middle-class rage with the governing class. Corruption has been rampant in India for decades; however, it has particularly come into the limelight recently as several multi-billion dollar scams have been revealed over the past several years. Protests began in Delhi and spread to over 50 cities and towns. Millions more supported the movement by participating in online and virtual campaigns in support of anti-corruption measures. The current generation of 20- and 30-somethings who took to the streets rejected the apathy of their parents’ generation, challenging the status quo and demanding change.
Protesters in Turkey were driven by varying motives. What united the disparate group of protesters was opposition to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's policies, which they see as a threat to traditional Turkish secularism. Like the protests in India, the protests in Turkey have been driven by pressing political issues and the strong desire of youth—especially middle class youth—to have their voices heard.
Bus fare increases of 20 centavos (nine cents) in major Brazilian cities have caused the most widespread protests in the country in decades. While the fare hikes were unpopular and outraged many over the cost of a shoddy public transportation services, this alone does not explain the protests. Brazilians pay over 30 percent of their incomes in taxes, which is among the highest for developing countries. Public services, from infrastructure to medical care, are seen as subpar, leaving many to question where their money is going and why the government requires such high levels of funding. Perceptions of corruption and poor governance have led people to take to the streets. Economic growth is not enough for the public; the people want more than what their elected leaders are offering.
This reaction in Brazil should trouble other emerging countries the most. Brazil is widely seen as a country on the rise. It is the dominant power in South America, and like India, Brazil earned inclusion in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). The Brazilian economy has been steadily growing and has lifted millions of people out of poverty and into the middle class. Brazil is the host of the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics—events that were supposed to serve as a coming out party for the South American giant. If mass protests can erupt in Brazil, it can happen anywhere.
One of the factors that has enabled protests to spread is technology. In an era of 24-hour cable news, Facebook, and Twitter, isolated events that once would have taken hours, days, or more to reach a population can spread instantly. In the past it would be difficult to quickly rally people and instigating events could blow over. Now the youth are able to communicate quickly, share grievances, and mobilize in a way the older generations of political elite struggle to understand. Technology has leveled the playing field and taken away the advantages politicians once enjoyed. State-run media may not cover protests or the causes that inspire them, but protestors updating Facebook and Twitter can reach a wider, like-minded audience and bring them into the streets.
Many authoritarian countries have counted on economic development to placate the public and minimize dissent. Leaders in these countries contend that economic development is more important than democracy or greater individual freedoms and that they are the only ones who can deliver a growing economy. China is the most prominent country in this category.
The governing Communist Party’s (CCP) legitimacy is now tied to economic growth rather than maintaining communist doctrine. The notion that expanding economic opportunity is no longer sufficient to satisfy the public is something the Politburo will find alarming. If a democratic country with a growing middle class can have a spontaneous eruption of protests, as has been demonstrated by Brazil, Turkey, and India, the implications for an authoritarian country is far more concerning.
In China the Communist Party runs everything and holds total power. Therefore, all complaints held by the public are directed at the CCP. A popular protest movement triggered by a small event could quickly spread to other groups with grievances and easily morph to challenge the legitimacy of the ruling authorities. This is a nightmare scenario with no easy answers for Beijing. There is no turning back on free market reforms, which has led to rampant economic growth; on the other hand, turning to more strident nationalism could quickly grow beyond the control of the authorities. If nationalist sentiments soar among the public it could limit the options of leadership in a crisis with Taiwan, Japan, or the U.S. Maintaining tight controls on internet access and information have become a matter of survival for the CCP—and an ever more important issue in light of recent global protests.
The results of the protests in India, Turkey, and Brazil remain to be seen. In India, the politicians ignored the demands for anti-corruption legislation and the protests fizzled over time. The public may yet get the last laugh in upcoming elections as the ruling Congress Party faces the prospect of running against the incorruptible Chief Minister of Gujrat Narendra Modi. Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s use of riot police to forcibly remove protesters could impact the future ambitions and legacy of Turkey’s transformational leader. The protesters in Brazil are amorphous and leaderless, but their complaints have already caused the popularity ratings of President Dilma Rousseff to plummet. With the tools of the digital era at their fingertips, youth have shown that they are a force that must be taken seriously—and governments who do not will do so at their own peril.
Vineet Daga is an independent foreign policy writer. He has a BA and MA in international affairs from The George Washington University.
Photo: Fernando H. C. Oliveira (cc).
