Facebook harms revolutions

Since December 2010, when the protests and "revolutions" erupted throughout the Arab world, many hopes have been hung on the "desired" outcomes of those events. The dynamic in the Arab/Middle Eastern world, which has excited minds in the same way as the French Revolution and others of its kind, caused more than a few speculators and political scientists to prophesy what is to come. They are focusing on the "desired" outcome, or at least what they consider to be "desired."

Today, the same "revolutionaries" are coming to the sobering realization that the "revolutions" they led did not bring about the social change they expected, and even worsened their situation. The revolutions' loss of momentum is seemingly caused by the same "revolutionaries" who started them. We can draw a direct connection between the protests and revolts (and also, by the way, to our social protest as well), and see that they are all missing components that are vital to the development of a revolution, both in the Arab world and elsewhere.

"The Facebook Revolutions" (and those on Twitter and Al-Jazeera) are certainly capable of bringing the masses from their homes and out onto the streets. The messages they convey are short and to the point, and can certainly be transformed into slogans and mantras on which a revolution rises or falls.

However, these revolutions' weaknesses stem precisely, and ironically, from their greatest advantages. For them to succeed, these "revolutionaries" must provide the quintessential elements of a revolution. First and foremost, they require opposition leadership. Look around and try to appoint an opposition leader in any of the regimes around us. I am sure you won't find one. Those leaders who tried to ride the protest waves as self-proclaimed saviors of their people had their illusions shattered. Second, there is no set guidebook or constitution by which a majority of revolutionary groups swear by. For the most part what drives the revolutions' supporters is the desire to oust the current order, yet they must produce a manifesto or similar document stating their ideals for the "day after" if they want to lead their followers.

Last but not least is the need for spiritual leaders -- not necessarily religious figures but spiritual leaders in the purest sense. I am also referring to intellectuals, philosophers and literary scholars whose strength is in their words -- or in this case, their writing. Yes, even revolutions need these types of leaders. In the Facebook age, every copyrighter and status writer can be considered a leader, yet this is exactly why we lack serious leaders, recognized, charismatic, ones who can lead with the public thanks to shared national, ideological and ethical ideals.

All of the revolutions taking place now lack a spiritual leader, a visionary who brings about a clear point of view for a new order he wants to present to his or her people. Those leaders, by the way, don't necessarily have to be part of the revolutions' leading party, but could serve as a uniting force that binds ideals for the protest groups. In any case, their absence also represents the absence of a "revolutionary spirit."

Furthermore, for a revolution to take shape, its leaders must build the foundations of the opposition movement and harness the revolutionary message to be relayed to their "target audience." The message will serve to unite the groups who are yearning for change. In the Facebook and Al-Jazeera age, "social revolutions" can depose powerful leaders like Zine el-Abidine ben Ali and Moammar Gadhafi, put Hosni Mubarak in a prison cell, lead (so-called) reforms in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and even lower the price of cottage cheese. However, those are just symptoms. Revolutions can no longer bring about real change, the kind that rids society of its ills.