The Arab Spring was a series of popular uprisings across the Arab World in the early 2010s. They were characterised by their use of slogans and chants that garnered support against the leaders. One aspect of language was how the chants touched on ‘the people’ while another aspect is the colloquial nature of the chants. Finally, the use of Classical Arabic from the Quran mobilised a different section of society compared to others. These aspects of language during the Arab Spring ensured that uprisings not only took hold in their owncountries but also spread across borders and encouraged more, although sometimes vastly different, uprisings.
There is certainly a universal concept across the Arab Spring of ‘the people.’ There are frequent references to ‘the people’ ‘al-sha’ab’ particularly in the phrase ‘ash-shab yurid isqat an-nizam’ ‘the people want to bring down the regime.’ This has two key strengths. Firstly, the phrase almost becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as the totality of the term ‘the people’ garners more and more collective support. It creates a sense of unity. The second reason is that the word for ‘the people’ ‘al-sha’ab’ can mean nation, people, group or race. Equally, ‘al-nizam’ ‘the regime’ can represent a pan-Arabic corrupt and oppressive state. These words not only make the movement relatable because ‘al-nizam’ could refer to so many regimes across the Arab world, but also relevant in the pan-Arabic way of thinking; these two aspects are crucial for spreading the movement because it separated the Tunisian protests from any other isolated uprising that happens in the world. The first point of mobilising and bringing along all the people in a country allowed these protests to gain strength and traction within the nation; the second point of relatability allowed the movement to cross borders and spread. Both aspects of this particular chant and its sentiment are key to the dissemination of the Arab Spring; one could not happen without the other.
The nature of the chants being in colloquial Arabic contributed to the ability of the movement to move across borders, rather than the opposite. While one might think that MSA (Modern Standard Arabic) would allow for a more coherent dissemination of the ideas, the use of colloquial Arabic legitimised the movement as being from ‘the people,’adding to this idea of ‘al-sha’ab’. Using the colloquial dialects was important because it cemented the Arab Spring as the ‘people’s uprising’. Not only was it important, but evidence suggests it was deliberate. Protestors did feel that they were part of something more than a local movement; it wasn’t that they were using a local dialect because they saw no reason to use MSA; they were using a local dialect as a purposeful choice of how to spread the movement – as a ‘sha’ib’ ‘popular’ movement; they were aiming at an international audience. Furthermore, the nature of the different words sometimes used was not too damaging because of the common ‘illocutionary force’. This basically means the sentiment and intention behind the words. So, although not all chants can cross borders because of dialectical differences, the sentiments of revolution are fluid and can be expressed however. Therefore, the use of local or national dialects in the Arab Spring did not hinder its international progress but instead aided it through legitimising it as a real people’s uprising and because ultimately, the sentiments of the words carry more weight than the words themselves.
Classical Arabic also plays a role in the Arab Spring. Many Islamist groups did very well out of democratically held elections after uprisings or even led the uprisings. To certain groups this was a religious uprising and a chance to reconstruct society under a more pious system and implement Shariah law; this was reflected in several successes for Islamist politicians after the Spring, such as in Tunisia and Egypt. For a few, the Spring was even more than that. They claim that the Arab Spring represented the end of the “tyrannical rule” that was prophesied in the Hadith of the Caliphate, meaning that a Caliphate would follow. However, this view was far less followed than the former. Either way, the words, written in classical Arabic and free of modern dialectical differences, mobilised people across the Arab world. Islam is such a key binding factor in the region, allowing for the Classical Arabic of the Quran to have a powerful impact on hundreds of millions of people on a daily basis and in this case, to motivate some to join revolutionary movements. The idea of returning to an Islamic system was appealing to Muslims in every country; this is possible as the Quran’s instructions on society have been preserved through this Classical writing. Classical Islam here carries the message of religion and so was a powerful tool in motivating people,regardless of country, by using the binding factor of Islam.
In conclusion, the use of collectivist language, colloquial dialect and religious encouragement legitimised the uprisings in many people’s eyes, allowing the movements to sustain and gain support as well as spreading across the Arab world. The Arab world has often been the victim of foreign meddling even after colonialism, such as Operation Ajax to overthrow Mosaddegh or the Suez Crisis; this certainly contributed to all three points. The first two focus on establishing the Arab Spring as a people’s revolution; the contrast here to meddling foreign powers makes that an even more appealing concept to people. Furthermore, Western ideals and values can clash with Islamist views and so some saw this as a chance to move away from the West and take back society in a way. Through collectivist language, perceived ‘real’ Arabic slogans, and Quranic motivations, the Arab Spring was able to proliferate, illustrating clearly how language was successfully used- albeit differently- to resonate with various sections of society but each example here was powerful to a certain group. It quite literally ‘spoke’ to them.
