Large opposition parties pursue their agendas not only by proving that they can mobilize their supporters, but also by proving that they can de-mobilize them. When any party becomes “the representative” of the opposition it immediately becomes the chief negotiator with the regime and its main asset in these negotiations is its ability to guarantee an end to confrontational action. In such scenarios a party will most often reach a settlement which benefits the party, but not necessarily the people.
In an imperialistic situation as in Egypt today, there are parties who oppose the regime merely because they want their party to be the one with the opportunity to collaborate with the imperial masters, not because they truly seek a revolutionary change in the power structure.
When they see the people revolting against the regime independently, adopting strategies without the party’s direction; it represents a danger to their position as the chief negotiator because if it is not action they called for, it is not action they can call off.
The solution for them in this scenario is to claim the action after the fact, and order the people to do what the people themselves already initiated without the party’s orders. In this way they can reassert their control over opposition strategies.
They will order you to fight after you already started so that you will listen to them when they order you to stop.
#تكتيكات_التعطيل
#استراتيجية_ثورة
#ثورة_مفتوحة_المصدر
#أهداف_الثورة_مفتوحة_المصدر
#Open_Source_Revolution