...to think the world is imploding?

[woollyideas]

Libya.
Ireland.
New Zealand.
Greece.
Berlusconi.
Condems.
Tunisia.
Egypt.
Bankers.

So many BIG stories in the news, all clamouring for our attention...

It might be
"that's great it starts with an earthquake, birds and snakes and aeroplanes ..."

I have stopped reading the news sites because it is doing my head in but DH is still on the RSS feed and Twitter and is alwaya checking what is trending and it's doing my head in " I REALLY DON'T WANT TO KNOW AAAARGH!!!" Is it so wrong that I don't want to know that the world is going to hell in a handbasket and all I want to do in the evening after a day entertaining 3 kids is to relax, lurk on Mumsnet and watch crap on TV and not have to think about all that?

erm what has happened in ireland? (live in ireland but dont watch the news)

What Abs said.

The unrest in N Africa and the Middle East could be positive, or could be disastrous, depending on what type of regime replaces those deposed. Some countries will probably have more positive outcomes than others.

The risk of a fallen dictatorship is either that a popular revolution gets hijacked by extremists who do not represent the wishes of the populace (eg Russian and Iranian revolutions) or that you have a lot of competing factions emerge and you end up with civil war (more likely when you have politically opposed ethnic groups such as the former Yugoslavia). There's also no guarantee that democracy will solve the country's problems, resulting in a crisis of rising expectations and more rioting/ a further revolution.

What is positive is that other Middle Eastern countries have started making (admittedly quite small) concessions/reforms because they don't want to be next.

Is anyone here an expert on the Middle East/Africa situation? Where do we think it will spread next? and what will the long term implications for other Gulf states be if Libya or Bahrain or Egypt go into civil war or long term turmoil?

Sorry, that was kind of asking the earth wasn't it? Crystal ball anyone?

I think the current ME situation has been triggered by the economic crisis. I'd equate it the atmosphere of the Depression in the 1930s which saw the rise of fascism, and the economic harships of the 1980s which led to the demise of Communism. People can tolerate shoddy government if they can still make a reasonable living and go about their business. When you add poverty & starvation to oppression, however, then you've got desperate people with nothing to lose and an explosive mix. Anywhere in the region that isn't democratically run, therefore, should make sure their people are really well looked-after and then start making arrangements for greater representation. Saudi, for example.

Not an expert, but an enthusiastic observer.

Next candidate - who the hell knows. Algeria's likely, as they are in an even bigger mess than Tunisia was but there's a very real danger extremists will take over - there are about 200 terrorist attacks a year, and the Maghreb Al Qaeda is very strong and influential there. Jordan is a likely candidate as there is a lot of disatisfaction, but nowhere near the level of places like Egypt. What a friend pointed out as a factor is the health of the leader - Mubarak is a very ill man (apparently gall bladder, but possibly something worse), so didn't feel the need to stick around. Same with Ben Ali from Tunisia. There are reports that he's currently in a coma after a stroke.

For the gulf states - honestly couldn't say. They must be very concerned, as it's a pretty similar political set up to Bahrain, only the have shedloads of money.

As a whole, generally revolutions do follow a similar course:

• overthrow of previous regime
• instability
• strong/dictatorial government takes over in attempt to bring stability
• overthrown, may eventually lead to more peaceful, stable society.

Existing tensions, like ethnic or religious ones, which were previously hid because of a common enemy (the existing government) may come to the fore and this could lead to civil war/other issues

I think the closest comparison would be Iran in 1979 - ailing, autocratic leader popular with the West, well-educated, under employed population BUT, I don't know how appealing the hardline Islamist line is now (as people have seen the mess/issues with Iran/Afghanistant/Iraq). What happened in Iran is that the liberals aligned themselves with the Islamist movement (to build numbers) and were shafted. I think people would be more wary of that now.

Well that's a very real fear in Egype isn't it, with this Muslim Brotherhood bunch being the only obvious contenders mentioned for possible power. But I'd read that in Libya, although Gaddafi has squandered zillions rather stupidly, the standard of living is generally very high compared to similar countries, as he is a Socialist and splashes money round on the people like there's no tomorrow. But clearly he is doing something wrong because they are not happy.

Agreed. But that's partially why the army has taken over in the interim:

• it's quite secular, and it's the only real alternative source
• the army is the source of billions of dollars in aid from the US. If it's seen that the Muslim Brotherhood is control, that's going to be cut off.

According to my super knowledgable friend (I honestly don't know how he knows all of this, but he is acquainted with quite a few diplomats ...) what happened with Turkey is that the EU wanted the army to be less influential, as a condition of it joining the EU. So, it's influence was reduced and this led to the rise of more traditional, Muslim politicians and parties (like Erdogan). Previously, the army had been a force for preserving secularism (for e.g. moustaches are banned, no headscarves, that sort of thing), and with their political influence reduced, so was the level of secularism.

To answer the original question, I don't think the world is imploding. There have been much more serious & widespread international problems in the past including full-on world wars as well as revolutions and natural disasters. The difference today is that 24-hour news means that every event gets wall-to-wall ad nauseam coverage rather than a few lines on hourly bulletins and a few pages in the newspapers. And if an event isn't 'BIG' to start with (like the Berlusconi fiasco) it is discussed and speculated about until it gets big enough to fill the air-time. Therefore creating an impression of global crisis out of proportion with actual events.

Perhaps you are right Chill. Personally I do think that whilst not imploding irreparably, the world is moving into an era of huge strife, which will last many years. Although there are always wars and natural disasters in every year, when life is going well at home we feel somewhat cushioned and detached from it.

Because we are all suffering from low morale, fears for our children's future, the job/pension/economic situation etc, it is harder to be positive or pragmatic about wider global issues, even if they don't affect us directly. I am usually quite level-headed and positive but I am feeling impending (maybe irrational?) feelings of doom at the moment.

Well. That cheered you all up didn't it?

jajas, the whole of britain is broke and will take a generation (i suspect alot longer TBH) to recover. i thought something had happened similar to that in NZ/libya etc. you know something massive and shocking.

According to an Algerian minicab driver I chatted with the other day, Algeria isn't likely to follow as it's on the road to democracy already. But we did agree that Gadaffi is a nutter and in a different league to Ben Ali and Mubarak. And in a further twist, the Ethiopian security guards at my friend's workplace have said that there are tanks in Addis because of unreported demonstrations there. So all from reliable sources

You can always rely on a cab driver to know what's what with the state of the world.

There was a programme about Ireland where whole half built housing estates had just been abandoned and the poor people who had bought there first were stranded there, the values had gone through the floor and they couldn't sell them, so they were stuck in these skeletal ghost towns with no infrasructure, unfinished roads etc. Just awful.

Blimey. If you think the world's imploding now, it's a good job you weren't around in 1348.

Que?

fellatio i saw that programme. there were massive estates with only a handful of residents, no street lighting, no tarmacing done. the developers were refusing to do anymore work as tehy couldn't sell anymore houses so weren't making anymore money. no banks were lending. it was awful for the people stuck there.