This is What Democracy Looks Like:Egypt, Wisconsin, and the Global Moment of 2011

Maddy BlainComparative Social Movements

Professor Paul Dosh8 May 2015

AbstractIn 2011, people across the world took to the streets, armed with demands for

democracy. In Egypt, an 18-day uprising culminated on February 11 when 30-year dictator Hosni Mubarak stepped down from power. On the same day, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker introduced a budget repair bill that incited rallies and occupation of Capitol Square in Madison. Comparisons with Egypt dominated coverage of the Wisconsin uprising, with debates raging over their similarities and differences. While the two movements are different in terms of scope, demands, and results, they show similarities in labor strike tactics and framing of demands as democratic rights. Because of these more subtle similarities, I argue that Wisconsin fits within a framework of a “global moment of 2011,” in which mass mobilizations are characterized by “democracy in the open” of central squares, demands for democracy, and globalized organizational networks. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thousands of people crowd Capitol Square in Madison, Wisconsin. It is cold outside,

early February in a state with a reputation for freezing winters. The occasional snowflake

falls as protesters stamp their feet to keep warm. But they keep moving in slow circles

around the Square, carrying signs, chanting, and singing. Nearly everyone is dressed in red,

the color of the Wisconsin Badgers and the color of opposition to Governor Scott Walker’s

“budget repair bill.” Kids ride on parents’ shoulders, teenagers play trumpets and

vuvuzelas, cars honk their horns in time to the chants: “Show me what democracy looks

like! This is what democracy looks like!”

On February 11, 2011, Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak stepped down from his 30-

year presidency after eighteen days of riots across the country. The same day, Wisconsin

Governor Scott Walker first introduced Act 10, which would strip collective bargaining

rights for public employees, among other cutbacks. Protests erupted. The media

capitalized, comparing Madison to Cairo, Walker to Mubarak. A debate arose. Democratic

State Senator Lena Taylor compared the fight for workers’ rights in the two countries, but

acknowledged the differences. Code Pink activist Medea Benjamin, on the other hand,

wrote in the Huffington Post that her travels “from Cairo to Madison seem like one seamless

2

web” (Benjamin 2011). Wisconsin Republican Representative Paul Ryan stated that “it’s

like Cairo has moved to Madison these days” (Latch 2011). In July of 2011, the Isthmus,

Madison’s weekly alternative newspaper, ran a story commenting on the huge number of

comparisons drawn between the two movements based on their timing and superficial

similarities, writing that “Wisconsin is, of course, not Egypt” (Hanna 2011).

Given the comparisons between Egypt and Wisconsin that dominated the media in

early 2011, I set out to question whether or not the comparisons were valid. The two

movements are different in scale, demands, and results, compelling me to ask if their timing

was the only thing they had in common. I argue that both movements occurred in February

2011 because of a global political opportunity structure and shift in definitions of

democracy and perceptions of protest. I seek to add depth to the comparisons that have

already been made between Cairo and Madison and situate the Wisconsin Uprising within

the framework of a “Global Moment” of 2011.

The year 2011 saw democracy take to the streets, in Egypt, the Spanish Indignados,

the Occupy movement, and protests in Greece, Tunisia, and Iceland. In Wisconsin, protests

were different, as state-level uprisings, not national revolutions. However, I argue that

Wisconsin shares many of the commonalities put forth by Glasius and Pleyers in their

framework of the post-2010 global moment of activism, rendering its comparison to Egypt

valid within a broader, global movement.

In the first section of this paper, I outline the events of both the “Wisconsin

Uprising” and the Egypt Revolution. I focus primarily on the Wisconsin Uprising in order to

argue that it belongs within the literature about global movements of 2011, of which Egypt

and the Arab Spring are already a part. With a chronological understanding of both

3

movements, their tactics, demands, and results, I then apply theoretical framework by Amy

Austin Holmes. Holmes analyzes the Egypt Revolution in terms of structural factors and

strategic innovation as leading to the fall of Mubarak. From this framework, I draw

parallels from Egypt to Wisconsin, highlighting the similarities and differences, especially

in terms of tactics. In this section, I call upon work regarding political opportunities and

tactics from Sidney Tarrow and Doug McAdam.

In the second part of the paper, I examine the Wisconsin Uprising from a global

context, arguing that the elements of similarity between Egypt and Wisconsin were not

enough for Wisconsin’s success, but place the events in Madison firmly within the global

moment of activism of 2011. The links between Egypt and Wisconsin will help us

understand the post-2010 climate of activism and the shifts in framing and participation

that took place in the streets of Cairo and Madison. Finally, these comparisons offer lessons

on the nature of activism, mobilization, and global solidarity since 2011.

Methodology

Most of my information about the Wisconsin Uprising comes from news sources,

online reports, and government publications. This information provides a solid

understanding of the events of the movement during the first weeks in February 2011,

which I then use to apply to theory by Amy Holmes, Sidney Tarrow, Doug McAdam, and

Marlies Glasius and Geoffrey Pleyers. My research focused on primary accounts and daily

updates from both movements in order to gain insight into how protesters and the media

viewed the uprisings as they occurred.

4

In addition, as a high school senior, I spent February 2011 at Capitol Square in

Madison. Information I remember from that time, as well as my memories of tactics,

results, and my perceptions of events form the basis of my research. Classes were cancelled

in my high school when teachers called in sick. My classmates and I organized a sit-in in our

high school cafeteria. My friends and teachers spent the night on the Capitol floor and

testified against the bill. I would like to acknowledge my own role in the protests against

Governor Walker’s bill, as my participation has informed my research questions and

sources of information.

Part I: Do you hear the people sing?

What’s Disgusting? Union Busting!1

In November of 2010, Scott Walker won the election for Wisconsin Governor. Just a

month after his inauguration, Governor Walker, in his own words, “dropped the bomb,”

introducing Act 10 to remedy a supposed $137 million state budget deficit, calling the bill

the “Emergency Repair Bill” or the ”Budget Repair Bill.” The bill, drafted in a special session

of the Wisconsin Assembly in January 2011, would strip public employees of collective

bargaining rights, extract benefit concessions, limit health care benefits, and separate UW-

Madison from the rest of the University of Wisconsin system (Wisconsin State Assembly

2011).

While on the other side of the world workers were toppling the decades-old

Egyptian dictatorship, laborers in Wisconsin were facing the destruction of their rights. The

140-page bill increased the cost of state workers’ health insurance and increased pension

1 All section headings in this paper come from signs and chants used during the Wisconsin protests of 2011.

5

contributions, bringing about an 8% decrease in take-home pay for state employees

(Farrington 2011). Michael D. Yates, a University of Pittsburgh economist, called the bill

“legislative blitzkrieg” and “a monstrosity designed to destroy public sector unions, expand

executive power, overall government agencies, and slash health and social services by $50

million while restricting eligibility, raising fees, and excluding undocumented immigrants”

(Yates 2012:31). The feature of the bill that would become central to the Wisconsin

Uprising, however, was the loss of collective bargaining rights for unionized workers.

Union laborers could no longer collectively bargain, except for wages, which could not

exceed inflation. Elizabeth Leigh Farrington called it “union-busting, plain and simple”

(2011).

The next day, February 12, protests began in the streets of Madison. University

students led the first rally, gaining support from Madisonians, and gathering outside UW-

Madison’s Memorial Student Union. News reports from the 12th estimated larger protests

to erupt at the Capitol in the coming days. They were right (WKOW 2011). Valentine’s day

saw Walker’s announcement of further cuts to the University of Wisconsin system and

separation of “flagship” UW-Madison from the many other UW system schools, affecting

their funding options. Labor and teaching organizations took to the streets, led by graduate

students in the Teaching Assistant Association (TAA), who delivered Valentines cards to

Governor Walker that read “I ♥ UW. Don’t Break My ♥” (Tarr 2011).

Other labor organizations joined the protests, rallying support and bringing

protesters to the steps of the Capitol building. The American Federation of State, County

and Municipal Workers (AFSCME) and the Wisconsin Education Association Council

(WEAC) secured permits and began organizing rallies in the afternoon and evening. The

6

first day, an estimated 2,000 people participated, a tally that would grow as weeks went by

(Source Watch 2011). Occupation of the Capitol building began on February 15th, with

between 10,000 and 13,000 protesters in Capitol Square and inside Capitol building.

Assembly Democrats started holding hearings inside the Capitol, allowing people to testify

against the bill and forcing the building to remain open (Mayers 2011). Union support for

protesters grew as firefighters joined the protests. Scott Walker did not include public

service unions, such as the police force and fire department, in the legislation against

collective bargaining rights, however, many firefighters protested in solidarity alongside

other unionized workers (Source Watch 2011; YouTube 02-16-2011).

I’d Rather Be Teaching: Tactics in Wisconsin

On February 15 and 16, with about 30,000 people already protesting around Capitol

Square and the Capitol building in Madison, teachers joined the fight. The Wisconsin

Education Association Council called for massive teacher walk-outs, bringing thousands

more protesters to the Square. In a strategy that became known as a “sick-out,” hundreds of

teachers around the state called in sick, forcing school closures across Wisconsin. Students

at Madison West High School staged walk-outs in support of their teachers, leaving school

grounds and marching to the Capitol in protest. Madison public schools were the first to

close, and remained closed for four straight days (Dayen 2011).

The mass walk-outs and school closures gained national media attention. MSNBC’s

Ed Schultz criticized media outlets and the Obama administration for their lack of support

of Wisconsin’s workers, calling the uprising a fight for “the soul of America.” Schultz

brought democratic principles into the conversation on a national level as well, saying

7

Wisconsin workers were “fighting for the very principles of the democratic party,” and

urging President Obama to support them (Schultz 2011). Fox News’ coverage of the

protests in Wisconsin sparked outrage when they used footage of Occupy protests in

California in a segment about Wisconsin. While it was snowing in Madison, the video clip

showed protesters in t-shirts surrounded by palm trees arguing with authorities. The clip

suggested a level of violence that was not present in Wisconsin, and prompted Madison

protesters to carry inflatable palm trees around the Square to highlight the inappropriate

media coverage (Huffington Post 2011).

By February 17, the Capitol building turned into a miniature city as protesters set up

camps inside the dome. Around 200 protesters spent the night of the 16th in the Capitol,

stalling the bill by testifying against it and forcing the building to remain open. Testimonies

against the bill turned to a constant stream of opposition. By the 17th, Assembly Democrats

had heard 63 hours of testimony, and the opposition would continue for weeks. In a further

attempt to stall voting on the bill, the fourteen Democratic Senators fled the state. As a

financial “budget repair” bill, a vote required a quorum, and without the Democrats, a vote

could not be held (PR Watch, 02-17-2011).

Occupation of the Capitol building and marches around Capitol Square lasted for

weeks. With the fourteen senators hiding out of state, passage of the Budget Repair Bill

stalled and protests gained more support. On the evening of February 18, the Reverend

Jesse Jackson, famed civil rights activist and Baptist minister, spoke at the Capitol. He led

the crowds in singing “We Shall Overcome,” a hallmark protest song of the civil rights era,

and evoking parallels with “Workers’ rights are human rights” (PR Watch, 02-18-2011).

8

On February 19, pro-Walker demonstrators joined the crowds at the Capitol. Anti-

Walker workers chanted “Kill the bill!,” met with “Pass the bill!” from the small knot of

Walker supporters, separated by plastic barriers. Security was on standby, but there were

no major clashes or violence. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports a state worker

debating a Walker supporter for ten minutes before the two shook hands and walked away.

Though the pro-Walker contingent was small in comparison to the pro-labor force in

Madison, they too were vocal about their support for the bill. However, unlike clashes in

Egypt that turned violent, interactions with opponents in Madison were relatively quiet

(Walker et al. 2011).

By March 3, however, Dane County judge John Albert ruled that occupation of the

Capitol violated the State Constitution, and allowed the Department of Administration to

remove anyone in the building after six p.m. that day (PR Watch, 03-03-2011). Though the

protests continued after the March 3 ruling, Governor Walker took a firmer stand against

workers after the hearing. On March 4, he threatened 1,500 layoffs if the bill did not pass,

and his supporters vilified the “Wisconsin 14” for “running away” (Marley and Stein 2011).

On March 9, Walker used his legislative power to strip the bill of its fiscal

components, allowing a vote to proceed without a quorum. With some Democratic senators

locked out of the Capitol, the Assembly met and Walker signed the bill into law on March

11. The next day, March 12, more than 100,000 people gathered in freezing temperatures

outside the Capitol, making it the largest political demonstration in Wisconsin history

(Farrington 2011). In light of Walker’s legislative action, democracy framing came to the

forefront of the protests. Farrington calls Walker’s action “an assault on democracy”

(2011). Senate Minority leader Mark Miller claimed “Our fight to protect union rights has

9

become a fight to protect all our rights -- a fight to protect democracy… You have inspired

the nation with your passionate and peaceful protests" (Pelzek 2011).

Out, damned Scott!: Recalls and Resignations

In response to Walker forcing the bill through the Assembly, workers mobilized

around democratic means of disposing the Governor. The grassroots organization United

Wisconsin formed to collect signatures to recall Governor Walker (Kroll 2011, Mother

Jones). United Wisconsin frames their effort as “restoring the Wisconsin tradition of

democracy in action” (United Wisconsin 2011). Recall election planning began in

November of 2011. United Wisconsin collected some 200,000 signatures on petitions to

recall Walker, and by January 2012, Walker’s opponents gathered more than 900,000

signatures (Davey & Zeleny 2012).

With well over the required number of petition signatures--one quarter of the

voters in the last election--Walker’s position as governor was put to a recall election.

Election day was set for June 5, 2012, and Walker campaigned and ran against Tom Barrett,

his 2010 opponent. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported 58% voter turnout for the

election, the highest turnout in 60 years for a non-presidential race (Gilbert 2012). In total,

2,516,065 votes were cast, and Scott Walker defeated Barrett with 53% of the vote (Gilbert

2012). In his victory speech, Walker said, “Tonight, we tell Wisconsin, we tell our country

and we tell people all across the globe that voters really do want leaders who stand up and

make the tough decisions” (Davey & Zeleny 2012).

However, “people all across the globe” might not agree with Governor Walker. On

February 11, 2011, the Egyptian people showed the world they were ready for democracy,

10

disposing of dictator Hosni Mubarak. Because of the near-simultaneous timing between

Egypt’s revolution and the protests in Wisconsin, the US media often paralleled Madison to

Cairo. Yet, the two movements varied widely in scale, demands, and results.

The economic climate preceding the Egyptian revolt was generally positive, at least

on paper. In 2010, the country’s GDP had been growing at a rate of 5% for years. Dalia

Mogahed, in her 2012 TED Talk, argues that, in spite of economic success, Egyptians “had

never felt worse in their lives.” Unemployment was actually rising in Egypt, as satisfaction

with housing and education plummeted (Mogahed 2012). There was a nation-wide desire

for freedom of speech, democracy, according to Mogahed. Egyptians wanted “jobs, stability,

and education, not moral policing” and they found power to enact political change for the

first time in 2011 (Mogahed 2012).

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak rose to lead the country in 1981. He ran an

authoritarian government for thirty years. During his first two terms, he developed

telecommunications, education, and industry infrastructures. However, rampant

corruption, rising population and insufficient public services soured these

accomplishments. By his third decade in office, “the crushing socio-economic conditions,

widespread corruption, and gap between haves and have-nots fuelled the anger that vast

swaths of Egyptians felt towards his regime,” (Osman 2012). Egyptian writer Tarek Osman,

of the American University in Cairo, writes that Mubarak remained distant from the

Egyptian people during his rule. Towards the end of his reign, he was the only leader many

Egyptians had ever known, and was thus the target for their dissatisfaction for the state of

the country (Osman 2012).

11

Within the last decade of his rule, Mubarak’s power began crumbling under him.

Osman writes that since 2005, small pockets of protests developed around the country,

pulling down posters of the president and rioting. The regime turned to “containment,

coercion, and confrontation” to control the growing discontent (Osman 2012). The state’s

containment efforts involved placating the middle class with economic reforms, while

coercing dissidents to back down by crushing protests. Mubarak’s regime confronted and

forcibly halted any incipient political initiatives in the country in order to protest his power

(Osman 2012). The young population grew increasingly restless, and the state relied more

heavily on coercion and confrontation to put an end to uprisings (Osman 2012).

In early 2011, against a backdrop of rising unemployment, poverty, and government

corruption, Egyptians began opposing Mubarak’s regime. In January, Egyptian activists

called for an uprising, urging people to take to the streets in a “day of rage” on January 25, a

national holiday to commemorate police forces (Al Jazeera 2011). Protesters fill the streets

in Cairo, marching towards the central Tahrir Square, and relying on Facebook and social

media to spread the word about the mobilization against Mubarak’s regime (Al Jazeera

2011).

As would happen in Madison’s Capitol Square two weeks later, thousands of

protesters flooded Tahrir Square in Cairo, spurred by networks calling the populace to

action. Mohamed ElBaradei, Nobel Peace Prize winner and democracy advocate, joined the

demonstrations in Cairo and became a leading voice for the protests (CNN 2011). The

Muslim Brotherhood allegedly urged Egyptians to join the movement (CNN 2011), though

they deny the claim (Al Jazeera 2011). Tahrir Square remained full of protesters for days,

paralleling Madison Capitol Square.

12

In contrast with the peaceful, nonviolent protests in Wisconsin, Egypt had several

dead in the course of its 18-day uprising. On the first day of protests, 20,000 people

crowded the streets of Cairo. By the end of the day, the Middle East News Agency reported

three dead and 49 wounded in clashes with police (CNN 2011). The following day, January

26, police turned water cannons and tear gas on protesters, arresting 90 in Cairo (CNN

2011). Within the first three days of protests, the Egyptian police made hundreds of

arrests, in contrast to Wisconsin where no arrests were made in weeks of protests.

On February 2nd, pro- and anti-Mubarak protesters begin a physical battle with

each other. The two sides hurled rocks and Molotov cocktails across Tahrir Square, and by

the end of the day about 1,500 people were reported injured (Al Jazeera 2011). By

February 9, Human Rights Watch reported a total of more than 300 dead since the

beginning of the movement (CNN 2011).

For eighteen days, Mubarak clung to his presidency. On January 30, he refused to

step down, but conceded that he would not run for another term. By February 5, several

key members of Mubarak’s ruling party stepped down from their positions. Facing chants

of “Get out! Get out!” Mubarak announced on February 10 that he would delegate powers to

his vice president, in accordance with the constitution, but maintained that he would stay

in office until September. However, the following day, the day that sparked uprisings a

world away in Wisconsin, Mubarak resigned from the presidency and handed power to the

Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. Chants of “Egypt is free!” filled the air in Cairo, and

rallied support around the globe (CNN 2011).

13

I Thought Cairo Would Be Warmer: Are Wisconsin and Egypt really that similar?

In Cairo, a young man holds a yellow sign that reads, “Egypt Supports Wisconsin

Workers: One World, One Pain” (Image 1). The photo was plastered all over news coverage

of the protests in Wisconsin, inspiring creative parallels between the two movements. Signs

reading “Gov. Scott Mubarak” and “From Cairo to Madison: Power to the People” filled the

streets, and from one cold protester in Madison, “I thought Cairo would be warmer” (PR

Watch, 02-17-2011). The Daily Show, New York Times columnists, and writers for The

Nation, among many others, debated the relatedness of the two movements (Kroll 2011,

The Nation).

Image 1. A protester in Cairo’s Tahrir Square holds a sign proclaiming support for Wisconsin laborers. Photo: justicewithpeace.org 2011

Egypt and Wisconsin are vastly different in many major ways, and not only

culturally or geographically. First, in terms of scale, Egyptians were fighting to overthrow a

thirty-year long dictatorship of their country. Wisconsinites were protesting a bill

introduced by a recently and democratically elected state governor. Egyptians were

14

struggling to gain democracy and freedom from dictatorship, calling for Mubarak’s

resignation and implementation of democratic elections. Wisconsinites were negotiating

loss: the loss of health care and pension benefits, if not also collective bargaining rights

(Kroll 2011, The Nation). Eventually, Wisconsin protesters demanded to recall Walker, but

in contrast to Egypt, all demands took place through democratic channels. The end results

set the two movements the furthest apart. In Egypt, after just more than two weeks of

protests, Mubarak stepped down from office. Wisconsin workers found no such success.

Despite the hundreds of thousands of signatures on recall petitions, Walker won the recall

election, remains in office, and Act 10 still stands in Wisconsin. Table 1 shows side by side

comparison of Egypt and Wisconsin along major dimensions of the movements: scale,

demands, location, violence, and results.

Egypt Wisconsin

Scale National; thirty-year dictatorship

State-level; recently & democratically elected governor

Demands Gain: President Mubarak’s resignation; democratic elections

Loss: Collective bargaining rights, healthcare and pension benefits;Gain: Recall of Gov. Walker

Location Tahrir Square (center of Cairo)

Capitol Square (center of Madison)

Violence More than 300 dead, 1,500 injured

No violence

Results Success Failure

Table 1. This table compares protests in Egypt and Wisconsin along dimensions of scale, demands, location, violence, and results.

15

In spite of these major differences, comparisons between Egypt and Wisconsin are

not entirely baseless. Regardless of similarities or differences between the movements,

there was mutual knowledge of both movements, and solidarity between them. Ian’s Pizza,

a well-known pizzeria in downtown Madison, received orders for pizzas from Egypt, with

the instructions to deliver the pizza to protesters in the Capitol (Huffington Post 2011).

Kamal Abbas, the general coordinator for Egypt’s Center for Trade Unions and Workers

Services, issued a statement of support for protesters in Wisconsin. The message, which

found its way to the walls of the Capitol building, read: “We want you to know that we

stand on your side. Stand firm and don’t waiver. Don’t give up on your rights. Victory

always belongs to the people who stand firm and demand their just rights” (Huffington Post

2011).

Other smaller similarities between the two movements extend beyond solidarity. As

described above, the location of the protests was similar in both cases. Egyptians filled

Tahrir Square, disrupting daily life, and making their demands visible to the entire city,

country, and world through media coverage of the occupation. In the center of Madison,

protesters also converged on the central plaza, Capitol Square. Downtown Madison was

near-impossible to navigate without stumbling upon protesters, thus disrupting the flow of

life.

Occupation of a central area proved to be an effective tactic for both movements,

and represent what Sidney Tarrow considers a “repertoire of contention.” The repertoire is

“not only what people do when they are engaged in conflict with others but what they know

how to do and what others expect them to do” (2011:39). The number of similarities

16

between Egypt’s and Wisconsin’s choice in tactics reveal a global repertoire of contention

that aligns the two movements in spite of fundamental dissimilarities.

In addition to occupation tactics, both movements enacted sit-ins and other means

of halting production. Jane Slaughter and Mark Brenner, in Yates’ book Wisconsin Uprising,

argue that in order to be an effective tactic, union strikes have to “disrupt the workings of

business as usual,” damage corporate profits, or “provoke a political crisis severe enough to

compel those in power to end it” (Yates 2011:142). In Egypt, disruption took the form of

labor strikes, which effectively shut down the entire country. Across the country, factories

and government offices closed as the population took to the streets (Yates 2011).

Wisconsin’s protests halted life in a different way, shutting down entire school districts as

teachers called in sick. The sick-outs, walk-outs, and sit-ins in in Wisconsin had similar

effects to the strikes and sit-ins in Egypt, in shutting down production, at least briefly.

However, while in Egypt the labor strikes affected the change they demanded, Wisconsin

protests did not. Slaughter and Brenner argue that Wisconsin failed in this tactic because

“to go all the way we will also need to empty the workplaces” (Yates 2011:142), and call a

general strike, which did not occur.

A third key similarity is the use of democracy framing in both movements. Tarrow

defines the act of framing as “how movements embed concrete grievances within emotion-

laden packages” (Tarrow 2011:26). In Egypt, protesters fought for democratic elections

and the end of the dictatorship that had ruled the country for decades. As seen above,

“democracy” rhetoric was applied in many forms in Wisconsin as well, even though the

state itself is already democratically run. Workers framed their demands for collective

bargaining rights as the loss of democracy in the workplace, and Walker’s legislative

17

actions, particularly in light of voting without a quorum, as anti-democratic. The use of this

frame ties the two together in a broader global movement for democracy, embedding their

demands in the larger and broadly defined concept of democracy.

Power to the People: Structure and Strategy

In her article, “There Are Weeks When Decades Happen,” Amy Austin Holmes

analyzes the uprising in Egypt along several dimensions in order to understand how the

Egyptian people were able to overthrow Mubarak in just eighteen days. In this section, I

draw upon social movement theory from Sidney Tarrow’s book Power in Movement (2011)

to expand elements of Holmes’ framework, specifically regarding political opportunity

structures, repertoires of contention, and tactics for disruption. Holmes’ article takes two

approaches to discuss the Egyptian Revolution, the structural model of revolution and an

analysis of strategies of opposition.

In the first section, Holmes analyzes the political opportunity structure of the

Egyptian revolution, and the role of the elite and the military in the uprising, which I

compare with the Wisconsin case to establish similarities. In the second section, she

outlines the strategies of both the Egyptian state and the opposition movement in three

phases: state violence, dual power, and labor strikes. These tactics offer comparison with

the tactics in Wisconsin, and highlight the similarities and differences between the

movements that enable my final argument that the two are similar in their broader

implications, if not their structural elements.

One common factor of mass mobilization is divisions within a regime, constituting a

political opportunity for opposition. Sidney Tarrow defines such “sets of conditions for

18

mobilization” as the “political opportunity structure” (2011:27). He argues that the key

elements of the opportunity structure are “opportunity/threat to challengers and

facilitation/repression by authorities” (ibid.), meaning political challengers perceive

political opportunities as encouraging contentious politics or as presenting a “front to

insurgents” and discouraging contention (2011:32). In Egypt, Holmes argues, rifts within

the Mubarak regime had formed by 2011, and challengers saw these divisions as

opportunities for action. The revolution in Egypt, she suggests, had no dissident elite

faction (Holmes 2012:396).

Mubarak had “pillars” of support during his regime, Holmes argues, including the

loyalty of the elite, the military, and allies with the United States (2012:392). The elite did

not provide a rupture in the political structure, nor did the military. During the first week

of uprisings against Mubarak, the military remained loyal to the state, and only “switching

sides” after the Egyptian people had already defeated the police force and changed the

balance of power. Therefore, the military “belatedly acknowledged” the revolution, “while

seeking to preserve as much of the status quo as possible” (Holmes 2012:398). Therefore,

the Egyptian people did not mobilize because they saw a conflict among the elites or an

opening in the political opportunity structure. Mubarak’s “pillars” of support eventually

crumbled, but they did not enable the beginnings of the protests.

Similarly, the Wisconsin protests were largely organized by the working class

population. Much of the rhetoric of the Wisconsin uprising focused on teachers, nurses, and

unionized laborers, in opposition to the elite class. Governor Walker, like Mubarak, had

significant support from the elite class. Walker’s most notable support came from the Koch

brothers, of Koch Industries, who funded his campaign (Farrington 2011). In parallel with

19

Holmes’ framework for Egypt, the military supported Governor Walker. He threatened to

call in the National Guard to “do the work of any stake worker who protested his law,”

showing his faith in the support of the military (Yates 2011:155). Thus, I argue that

workers in Wisconsin, like Holmes argues for the Egyptian people, did not mobilize as a

result of a political opportunity of divided elites or military. Instead, Wisconsin mobilized

around its “progressive labor history” (Farrington 2011).

As a state, Wisconsin boasts a long history of progressive labor politics. In 1959,

Wisconsin became the first state to allow state workers to collectively bargain. The

Wisconsin people have a tradition of pushing for state legislation for social action, and

enacted its first successful labor strike in 1848, the year Wisconsin became a state

(Wisconsin Historical Society 2015). Since gaining statehood, Wisconsin has had a tradition

of contentious politics and labor mobilization. Tarrow defines skill sets of contentious

politics as “repertoires of contention,” which represent “not only what people do when they

are engaged in conflict with others but what they know how to do” (Tarrow 2011:39).

Wisconsin workers know how to strike, how to protest, and how to push for legislation.

This history and collective knowledge of the Wisconsin’s traditions of labor movements

created a cultural push for workers in 2011 to take to the streets and protest Walker’s bill.

In the section part of her argument, Holmes analyzes the tactics that aided in the

overthrow of Mubarak. She examines both actions taken by protesters and by the state to

counter the challenges. This interplay of tactics is what Doug McAdam has referred to as

“tactical interaction,” wherein “insurgents and opponents seek, in chess-like fashion, to

offset the moves of the other” (McAdam 1983:736). In Egypt, the state answered the threat

of an uprising by “plunging Egypt into cyberspace darkness” (Holmes 2012:402), locking

20

down Cairo, and blockading streets in the city (Holmes 2012:403). The regime responded

to the the gathering in Tahrir square with “massive force,” and violence against protesters

(ibid.). Holmes reports that 846 people died over the course of the 18 days (397). The use

of violence represents what McAdam calls a “tactical adaptation,” or response to contention

on the part of the state (McAdam 1983:736).

In “chess-like fashion,” movements respond to state repression with creative tactics,

which McAdam calls “tactical innovation” (McAdam 1983:736). In Egypt, labor strikes

define the final phase of the uprising, as well as a tactical innovation to shut down

production in the country and force the resignation of Mubarak. In Wisconsin, where there

was no violence at the hands of the state, protesters responded to Walker’s bill with

creative measures. Sick-outs and sit-ins, as seen above, parallel the labor strikes in Egypt.

In addition to the fourteen senators who fled the state to avoid quorum, the testimonies,

marches, and occupations examined above, Wisconsinites enacted several creative

measures to react to Walker’s actions. When Walker and the Republican senators imposed

restrictions on the fourteen democratic senators, the Democrats responded by moving

their desks outside--in the middle of Wisconsin winter--to hold meetings outside

(Farrington 2011). Farmers from around the state and members of Family Farm Defenders

Union organized a “tractorcade,” circling Capitol Square to “show solidarity between farm

labor and organized labor” (Farrington 2011; YouTube 03-12-2011).

Like Egypt, Wisconsin’s protests arose not out of political opportunity, since both

movements lacked certain elements, like the divided elite or military. Instead, in the case of

Wisconsin, a tradition of progressive and vocal labor support led to uprising against

Walker’s bill. By viewing Holmes’ framework of strategies through McAdam’s lens of

21

tactical interaction, parallels in Wisconsin and Egypt’s tactics come to light. Patterns of

moves and countermoves between the state and the people are similar across the two

cases, however, Egypt was successful because the final stage of its uprising was the labor

strike. Wisconsin workers never called a general strike. A general strike in Wisconsin may

have changed the outcome of the uprising, since “you can’t put 100,000 people in jail”

(Rothschild 2011:23). The final section of this paper seeks to investigate the global moment

of activism in 2011 that ties the two movements together, in the eyes of protesters and the

media, in spite of their different outcomes.

Part II: One World, One Pain

What this paper has shown so far is that, in spite of fundamental differences in scale,

demands, and results of Egypt and Wisconsin movements, the two share many smaller

similarities in tactics, framing of demands, and demographics of the protest. These

similarities suggest a trend in global struggle for labor rights. What can we learn from the

similarities between Egypt and Wisconsin? Glasius and Pleyers argue for a global moment

of activism in 2011, characterized by three commonalities: networks, shared political

context, and shared articulation of demands across the globe. I place Wisconsin within the

framework among post-2010 activisms around the world.

Infrastructure and the evolution of networks is the first commonality of movements

within Glasius and Pleyers’ framework of the global moment of 2011. Their concept of

“Infrastructure: Networks, Meetings, and Forums” (2013:55) corroborates what John

McCarthy and Mayer Zald call social movement organizations. The concept of a “social

movement organization” reflects “the fact that many social movements are indeed largely

22

composed of formal organizations” (McCarthy & Zald 1977:197). Glasius and Pleyers argue

that, across the world, movements in 2011 utilized networks of organizations for the

spread of information and mobilization of bodies. International organizations played a role

in the resonance and inspiration for social movements that took place around the world in

2011. Glasius and Pleyers cite six international meetings that occurred in 2010 as

“fostering networking and exchanges of experience and hope across the region as well as

within national borders” (2013:551). For Egypt, “very dynamic” delegations from the Arab

world at the European Social Forum in Istanbul in July 2010, and at the World Social Forum

in Dakar in February 2011 connected the Arab world with activists in Europe and around

the world (Glasius & Pleyers 2013:551).

The World Social Forums fostered consciousness of workers’ struggles around the

planet. Egyptians learned of the plight of Wisconsin workers through new channels of

information opened up through connections with activists around the world, and

“recognition flowed in all directions: amid many waving Egyptian flags, one Tahrir Square

protester in February 2011 was photographed holding a placard ‘Egypt Supports

Wisconsin Workers’” (Image 1) (Glasius & Pleyers 2013:552). While Glasius and Pleyers

acknowledge that protesters in Egypt were aware of Wisconsin’s struggle, they do not

examine the Wisconsin Uprising in the rest of the article. I argue that the protests in

Wisconsin had roots in the same global context of other 2011 movements, including Egypt.

These roots refer to the precarious position of the working class after 2010, and their

articulation of demands for democracy. Through these similarities, Wisconsin can be

considered part of the wave of movements of 2011.

23

A “precarious global generation” constitutes the participants for global movements

of 2011. By “precarious” Glasius and Pleyers refer to the global political climate, especially

after the 2008 financial collapse. In particular, the population within the “precarious

generation” grew up “in a neoliberal environment of income insecurity with diminished

state-sponsored safety nets, where neither work nor public services could be taken for

granted” (Glasius & Pleyers 2013:552). The neoliberal characteristics of the 2011 global

context rendered insertion into the job market difficult (Glasius & Pleyers 2013:553). In

addition, “the last ten years have witnessed an acceleration and intensification of the

corporatization of all arenas of the world--nature, politics, culture, law, war, economics,

food, water, love, creativity, thought, life, death” in what DeLuca calls “industrial

corporatocracy” (DeLuca 2011:86).

Inaccess to jobs, along with rising food prices and the denial of civil and political

rights, the generation coming of age in 2011 found itself in a precarious situation. The

unemployed and underpaid, such as teachers, laborers, and young workers, “did not cause

the financial collapse,” but they are the ones who suffer at the hands of corporations, who

control capital, DeLuca argues (DeLuca 2011:87). However, the generation of 2011 also

had access to new global technology, allowing for networking with others in similar

situations around the world. Social media became a tool of globalization that aided young

activists through “networking, distributing news through social networks, uploading videos

on YouTube, participating in chats, sharing common cultural references, following the

events and talks of demonstrations and occupations worldwide, sharing their experiences,

claims and hopes in squares and protest camps and developing similar protest styles and

tactics” (Glasius & Pleyers 2013:553).

24

The most central aspect of the global uprisings of 2011 is the shared articulations of

demands, especially through framing for democracy, social justice, and dignity. This final

component ties Egypt and Wisconsin together most closely, suggesting a global shift in

perceptions of labor protests and the power of the middle class. Even without success in

Wisconsin, there is shift in how people think about politics. The very first protests in

Madison began with students at the University of Wisconsin, and protests grew as Madison

area students walked out of their high schools and joined the crowds at the Capitol.

Image 2. This photo shows the parallel between workers rights and human rights in Madison. Photo: ceasefiremagazine.co.uk 2011.

As shown above, much of the framing of Wisconsin’s protests focused on the idea of

democracy. Farrington writes that unions were instrumental in democracy framing: “This

battle was about preserving democracy and rejecting oligarchy or plutocracy--and

preventing Republicans from destroying unions, the traditional Democratic power base”

(Farrington 2011). In 2011, a global shift in understanding of democracy occurred, Glasius

and Pleyers argue. Protesters around the world saw democracy “not just as something to

demand from politicians, but also a task for themselves” (Glasius & Pleyers 2013:556). The

25

chants of “This is what democracy looks like!” that reverberated around Capitol Square

highlight this shift to democracy through action.

“Doing democracy” became the focus, especially “to do democracy in the square”

from Tahrir to Spain’s Plaza del Sol to Occupy camps to Madison’s Capitol Square (Glasius &

Pleyers 2013:557). Thus, as Mogahed said, “In 2011, power shifted from the few to the

many. From Oval Offices to central squares. From carefully guarded airwaves to open-

source networks” (Mogahed 2012). The leaderless protests in both Wisconsin and Egypt

illustrate “the idea of a society ruled by law as an expression of the people’s solidarity

rather than the sovereignty of any upright or righteous person or group” (Glasius & Pleyers

2013:557). Through their participation in the movements, protesters developed a faith in

the democratic process and “today 90% tell us that if there’s a problem in their community,

it’s up to them to fix it” (Mogahed 2012).

The final component of Glasius and Pleyers’ framework is framing of demands as

social justice and dignity. Workers in Wisconsin framed their struggle for labor rights as

one for human rights (Image 2). United Wisconsin published a brochure citing the United

Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees the right to form and join unions

(United Wisconsin 2011). Glasius and Pleyers suggest a definition of dignity that is “the

assertion of shared humanity,” (2013:560), which lends credence to the argument that

workers rights are human rights. Thus, the 2011 protests in Wisconsin can be seen as

mobilizations for dignity. The three components of democracy, social justice, and dignity

come together in Glasius and Pleyers’ framing argument: “assertion of dignity is connected

to both democracy-as-participation and to social justice” through active protests against

the loss of human rights (Glasius & Pleyers 2013:560). Image 3 illustrates the concepts

26

outlined in Glasius and Pleyers through examples of signs carried during the Wisconsin

Uprising.

Image 3. This image shows signs from the Wisconsin protests that highlight the concepts outline in Glasius and Pleyers. Signs clockwise from the left: “Wisconsin knows Democracy”, “All we are asking is give democracy a chance… Please”, “Care about your educators like they care for your child”, “Sweet dreams not nightmares for my future!”, “Collective bargaining: It’s our right!” Photo: nymag.com.

Conclusions: Walk Like an Egyptian

The global moment of 2011 saw middle and working class citizens mobilize around

democracy and human rights, across the world. As a result of the 2008 financial meltdown

that rendered employment precarious globally, increasingly global social networks, and a

shift in framing of demands, people everywhere took to the streets to protest injustices. As

Yates writes, “For a moment it seemed as if there was one revolutionary movement

stretching from the Nile to Lake Michigan” (Yates 2011:86). This moment of revolution

provides context to the comparisons the US media drew in the wake of Egypt’s revolution

and the beginnings of the uprisings in Wisconsin.

27

In the cases of Egypt and Wisconsin, February 11, 2011 marked a dramatic shift in

global democracy. For Egypt, February 11 was the day Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year regime

ended, returning Egypt to democratic rule. For Wisconsin, it was the day the state’s unions

lost their democratic collective bargaining rights. The stark differences in scale, demands,

and results between the two movements, rather than setting the movements far apart,

reveals insights into the politics of the global moment of 2011. I argue that Wisconsin

belongs alongside Egypt in the discussion of the global moment, because the uprisings in

Madison parallel the dimensions of tactics and framing set forth by Holmes and Glasius and

Pleyers.

Because of the near-simultaneous timing of the Egypt and Wisconsin movements,

comparisons between the two were initially simple: the people mobilizing against their

oppressive leaders. However, over time, the comparisons appear less apt, despite the

solidarity between the two: signs and pizza orders, for example. In this paper, I have shown

why the comparisons immediately publicized are valid, even in the face of the different

situations and outcomes. These less obvious similarities tell more about how global

movements take root, especially in an age of globalized technology, as well as the

importance of timing, framing, political opportunity, and tactics.

The parallels between the two thus offer some “lessons” for social movements. First,

mobilization takes organization. Both Egypt and Wisconsin built their protests on existing

organizations: the Muslim Brotherhood, labor organizations, and international forums in

Egypt, and AFSCME, WEAC, teachers’ unions, and schools in Wisconsin. Further, Madison,

and the entire state of Wisconsin, was already known as a locus for pro-worker

28

movements, given the state’s long history of organized labor. This strong background in

organization techniques allowed for information to spread quickly through networks.

Second, the use of public space is key. The occupation of central squares in both

Cairo and Madison brought democracy into the open and encouraged others to participate.

Additionally, mass occupation of the city center disrupted daily life, and shut down

transportation and business as usual in the cities, gaining recognition and media attention.

The massive protests in the squares exemplified “democracy in action,” and changed the

way the populace thought about their own roles in democratic processes.

Finally, Egypt and Wisconsin show the importance of being inclusive. By attaching

public sector bargaining to “bigger vision of democratic rule,” Wisconsin’s unionized

laborers were able to reach Wisconsinites who are not union workers, teachers or state

employees, but who believe in the democratic process (Yates 2011:163). The movements

both reached across state and national borders, building solidarity across the globe, shown

most clearly in the young man’s sign for “One World, One Pain” and international orders for

Ian’s pizza.

29

Works Cited

Al Jazeera. “Timeline: Egypt’s revolution.” Al Jazeera English. February 14, 2011. Benjamin, Medea. “From Cairo to Madison: Hope and Solidarity are Alive.” The Huffington

Post. February 21, 2011. CNN Wire Staff. “Timeline of Egypt Protests.” The Cable News Network. February 3, 2011. Davey, Monica and Steven Greenhouse. “Angry Demonstrations in Wisconsin as Cuts

Loom.” The New York Times. February 16, 2011. Dayen, David. “In Wisconsin, Budget Repair Bill Passes Committee; Mass Teacher

Walkouts Planned.” Firedoglake. February 17, 2011.DeLuca, Kevin Michael. 2011. “Interrupting the World As It Is: Thinking Amidst the

Corporatocracy and in the Wake of Tunisia, Egypt, and Wisconsin.” Critical Studies in Media Communication, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 86-93.

“Farm Labor Tractorcade- Madison, Wisconsin.” YouTube. March 12, 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI6XXYM5kjY

“Firefighters Join Labor Rally-Madison 2-16-11.” YouTube. February 16, 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWH0Jc-0Z94

Gilbert, Craig. “Recall turnout June 5: High in most place, insanely high in some.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. June 27, 2011.

Hanna, Alex. “Wisconsin and Egypt: A tale of two uprisings.” The Isthmus. July 18, 2011. Huffington Post. “Donations to Ian’s Pizza On State Street Help Feed Teachers’ Protest in

Madison, Wisconsin.” The Huffington Post. February 21, 2011. Huffington Post. “Fox News Uses Footage From California Rally in Segment on Wisconsin

Protests.” The Huffington Post. March 3, 2011.Kroll, Andy. “Cairo in Wisconsin.” The Nation. February 28, 2011. Kroll, Andy. “It’s Recall Time for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.” Mother Jones. November 14,

2011. Latch, Eric. “Paul Ryan on Wisconsin Protests: It’s like Cairo has moved to Madison.”

Talking Points Memo. February 17, 2011.http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/paul-ryan-on-wisconsin-protests-it-s-like-cairo-has-moved-to-madison-video

Marley, Patrick and Jason Stein. “Hiding senators held in contempt; layoff notices go out today.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. March 3, 2011.

Mayers, Jeff. “Thousands of Wisconsin union workers protest budget plan.” Reuters. February 15, 2011.

McAdam, Doug. 1983.“Tactical Innovation and the Pace of Insurgency.” American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 (December): 735-754.

McCarthy, John, and Mayer Zald. 1977. “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory.” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 82, pp. 169-185.

Mogahed, Dalia. 2012. “The Attitudes That Sparked Arab Spring.” TEDTalks. New York: Films Media Group.

Osman, Tarek. 2012. “The Fall of Hosni Mubarak.” Cairo Review. Cairo: American University in Cairo. Summer 2012.

Pelzek, Erica. “CMD Reports: Largest Crowd Yet to Protest Renegade Governor’s Moves.” The Center for Media and Democracy. March 12, 2011.

30

PR Watch. 2011. “Wisconsin Protests.” February 16-July 11, 2011. Rothschild, Matthew. 2011. “Dogging Walker.” The Progressive. June 2011, pp. 22-24. Schultz, Ed. “The Ed Show: Support for unions swells in Wisconsin.” NBC News. Video.

February 16, 2011. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21134540/vp/41634867#41634867

Tarr, Joe. "Report from the Command Centers: Protests Slow for a Day, but Activity in and around the Capitol Continues." The Isthmus. February 21, 2011.

Tarrow, Sidney G. 2011. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

“United Wisconsin: About.” 2012. http://www.unitedwisconsin.com/about-united-wisconsin

“United Wisconsin: Workers’ Rights are Human Rights.” 2011.http://www.unitedwisconsin.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/cb-iehb-side-one-and-two.pdf

Walker, Don, Lee Burgquist, Bill Glauber. 2011. “Biggest protests yet as pro-Walker side, larger union crowd meet peacefully. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. February 19, 2011.

Wisconsin State Assembly. “2011 Wisconsin Act 10.” Wisconsin State Assembly, Jan. 2011. Wisconsin Historical Society. “The Birth of the Labor Movement.” 2015. “Wisconsin Protests.” Source Watch. Updated March 12, 2015. WKOW. 2011. “Students protest Gov. Walker’s budget repair bill.” WKOW ABC 27. February

12, 2011. http://www.wkow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14019932

Yates, Michael D., ed. 2011. Wisconsin Uprising: Labor Fights Back. New York: Monthly Review Press.

31