Podcast Summary:

Reclaiming Democracy in the Square? Interpreting the Anti-Austerity and Pro-Democracy Movements
LSE Public Lectures and Events | October 10, 2013

Episode Overview

This episode features a panel discussion at the LSE, with Professor Marlies Glasius (University of Amsterdam), Professor Heba Raouf Ezzat (Cairo University), and Dr. Armine Ishkanian (LSE) sharing research and reflections on anti-austerity and pro-democracy movements. Drawing from qualitative and quantitative research across several global sites—including Greece, Egypt, Armenia, Russia, and the UK—the speakers critically examine the motivations, dynamics, and aspirations behind wave-like protests since 2010, the contested meanings of democracy and social justice, the role of social media and NGOs, and the ongoing impact of civic mobilizations.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Research Motivation, Scope, and Methods

Speaker: Professor Marlies Glasius
[01:31–15:54]

• The initial skepticism: Glasius described being skeptical of media portrayals in 2010/11 that framed protestors as directionless and disconnected from broader civil society.
• Noticing global commonalities: Despite apparent differences, she and Ishkanian suspected deeper links among anti-austerity protests in Southern Europe and pro-democracy movements in the Arab world.
  • “I immediately had a feeling that there was something more than meets the eye to these things happening simultaneously, that there might be some deeper commonalities.” [03:30]
• Collaborative and comparative: They combined qualitative and quantitative approaches, focusing on both event frequency and the substance of demands and aspirations.
• Notable methodology: Only counted events that had at least 50 participants and demonstrated some sustainability—protests or encampments of more than 10 days in 3 months.
• Findings show the protest wave was not just a flash-in-the-pan, as mobilizations re-emerged in late 2012 and 2013 (Brazil, Bulgaria, Istanbul).

2. The Role and Limits of Social Media

Speaker: Professor Marlies Glasius
[08:00–11:30]

• Social media aided organization and courage, providing visibility and a sense of collective strength—especially in environments where on-the-ground organizing was perilous.
  • Quote: “One of the things that social media can do is kind of both measure and also perhaps augment the kind of civil courage underneath these kinds of protests.” [09:33]
• Yet, social media translated less into transnational solidarity than hoped—language barriers often limited exchange to national or regional contexts.

3. Rethinking Democracy—Democracy Beyond the Ballot

Speaker: Professor Marlies Glasius
[11:30–15:54]

• Protestors consistently rejected the idea that “electoral democracy” was the highest form of democracy. Instead, they imagined democracy as a practice—a “culture and obligation at a popular level.” [13:50, Ahmed, 22, Cairo]
  • Notable quote: “Democracy is not something you demand from the state. Democracy is something that needs to happen in society. It's a way of doing things.” [12:57, interviewer summary]
  • “Democracy comes from all of us… if we want to give democracy real meaning, it has to start at a grassroots and society must fight for it. It's not a gift, but something you have to fight for.” [14:11, Nafsica, Athens]
• The experience of ‘the square’ as utopia: Occupying space together was seen as both transformative and fleeting—a glimpse of an alternative society.
  • “God shows certain people utopia to tell them it exists and that you have to achieve it yourself, and then it's gone.” [15:34, Cairo respondent]

4. Structure vs. Agency, and the Return of the State

Speaker: Professor Heba Raouf Ezzat
[16:15–30:24]

• Links current protest waves to earlier anti-globalization and anti-war movements, framing these as a generational bid for change.
• Structural pushback: Ezzat emphasized that formal and informal flows of power are in constant tension. States often absorb, deflect, or suppress bottom-up democratizing initiatives post-mobilization.
  • “The generation that usually pushes for the change is not the one that gains the outcome and the fruits of change.” [18:00]
• The reality of the “fierce state”: Even after moments of utopia (e.g., Tahrir Square), tightly ordered (sometimes military) state structures reassert themselves—often reversing or coopting the movements.
  • "Whether we call what happened in Egypt a coup...does not allow us to understand the very complicated dynamics of the relation between the street, the return of the masses and the rule.” [21:20]
• Polarization and civility: Rising exclusion and the corrosion of civilized political discourse threaten dreams of inclusive citizenship and genuinely democratic transformation.
• Gender and exclusion: Ezzat reminds us that civil-military relations, women’s and children’s rights, and the erosion of law are central but often marginalized issues in these processes.

5. Social Justice and Individual Responsibility—Between Community Action and State Obligation

Speaker: Dr. Armine Ishkanian
[30:24–46:05]

• Social justice was a key demand, articulated as less inequality, state protection for the underprivileged, and access to basic services.
• Protestors expressed a “double responsibility”: demanding change from the state while recognizing their own role in fostering solidarity, community action, and new social connections.
  • “I demand it from myself, the understanding that you have to change yourself in order to change society.” [31:15]
• Yet, participants sharply rejected the notion (common in neoliberal policy) that “responsibility” means individuals must compensate for the absence of the state.
  • Quote: “It's very strongly associated with neoliberal politics ... and in order for them to become more responsible, we need to encourage them to become more enterprising, entrepreneurial and responsible … but that doesn't work.” [33:18]
• Case studies of grassroots solidarity: From Greece’s "lazy Greeks" poster (150 new solidarity initiatives) to Occupy London's collaborations in local communities and Armenia’s free carpooling protest.
• Civil society and NGOs: Ambivalent relationship—movements both cooperated with and distrusted formal NGOs, often accusing them of bureaucracy, co-option, or irrelevance unless “behind the scenes.”
  • “We are the disaffected, the pissed off, the subversives. Within the conventional world of voluntary action, the voluntary sector has become privatized, corporations democratized and deadheaded. So increasingly now align with and see our future with direct action and radical movements.” [41:18, London respondent]
• Lasting impact? Shifts in public discourse about inequality, justice, and democracy, as well as the development of new activist networks, even if policy success is limited.

Audience Q&A Highlights

On Mobilizing “Subversives” and the Unitary Nature of Protest

• Panelists noted the spontaneity and unpredictability of collective action—“big moments” often emerge unexpectedly, and square occupations regularly bring together conflicting forces who debate, sometimes fiercely, but also experience periods of unity against a common adversary.
  • “In all the squares...there were both nationalist forces and various versions of left wing forces...part of the point of democracy is not that you all agree with each other, but that you differ possibly quite fiercely.” [49:07, Marlies Glasius]

On National Sovereignty and Context-Specific Meanings of Democracy

• Especially in Greece and Egypt, meanings of democracy and protest were fragmented and evolved along political, social, and ideological lines, and were not reducible to a single political “subject.”
  • “There is no unitary square anymore, and there is no unitary square in the geometrical sense.” [53:46, Heba Raouf Ezzat]

Gender and Exclusion

• Women’s and children’s rights often suffered as crisis deepened; the speakers acknowledged more work needed to be done in addressing their marginalization both in movement spaces and in society.
  • “We have very disturbing information coming out of the street and the NGOs that have been monitoring the situation of child rights ... the commitment to child rights law, the child law are very disappointing.” [55:26, Heba Raouf Ezzat]

Role of Formal (NGOs) vs. Informal (Movements) Civil Society

• The relationship is complex: informal groups have street power, but lack the channels to influence policy; formal organizations may have those channels but lack credibility or flexibility.
  • “We are talking about different universes within civil society.” [66:33, Armine Ishkanian]

Transforming Capitalism and Seeking Total Change

• Some activists desire a complete transformation of social and economic relations, but sustaining momentum and translating aspiration into actionable strategy remains an open question.
  • “The importance of being concerned with transformation of society and...that we are facing a situation of complete takeover of capitalism, I think, is in people's minds, but how to act is problematic...” [65:40, Armine Ishkanian]
  • “Total transformation of society...is precisely why a few years afterwards, the yields may seem disappointing. That's precisely because the aspirations were so enormous.” [70:49, Marlies Glasius]

Moral Philosophy and the Future of Civility

• The panel reflected on the need for a new moral and ethical foundation for politics—one that is both collective and humane.
  • “Listening in precisely to those primarily, but not always young people in the streets is where we get our new moral philosophy, maybe get out of the crisis of democracy.” [77:43, Marlies Glasius]
  • “There are so many things that the political conflict in Egypt has been obscuring. There is a fall of many myths...If you follow some of the Facebook pages of some Salafis, for example...they are bringing to the space a new voice of reflection, comparison with Western philosophies, rereading of their own heritage, going out of the hierarchies.” [75:52, Heba Raouf Ezzat]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On grassroots democracy:
  “Democracy is a culture and obligation at a popular level. We use democracy for formulating our revolution in the family, in the streets. People have not been educated to practice dialogue in democracy.”
  — Ahmed, Cairo [13:50]

• On fleeting utopia:
  “God shows certain people utopia to tell them it exists and that you have to achieve it yourself, and then it's gone. That's why I don't see the revolution as a failure, because it was just hope and a glimpse of what we can achieve.”
  — Cairo respondent [15:34]

• On the square as unity and diversity:
  “The utopia that was there actually was fragmented into different utopias along the ideological lines… There is no unitary square anymore.”
  — Heba Raouf Ezzat [53:46]

• On new forms of responsibility:
  “I demand it from myself, the understanding that you have to change yourself in order to change society.”
  — Armine Ishkanian, summarizing respondents [31:15]

• On the future:
  "We are in a crisis of new ideas and new ideologies...But I think there is also hope that...in many places where the youth are thinking in different terms and sharing ideas. So hopefully there will be more to think about."
  — Armine Ishkanian [78:40]

Important Timestamps

• 01:31–15:54: Marlies Glasius on research motivations, methodology, and key findings
• 16:15–30:24: Heba Raouf Ezzat on structural constraints, state backlash, and fragmentation of utopian moments
• 30:24–46:05: Armine Ishkanian on social justice, the limits of individual responsibility, and the role of NGOs
• 49:44–59:30: Panel Q&A on subversives, movement heterogeneity, and gender
• 66:33–70:49: Insights on formal/informal dynamics, “total capitalism,” and the challenges of transformative movements
• 70:59–78:40: Moral philosophy, learning post-occupation, and the possibilities for new civil discourses

Takeaways

• Protests since 2010 share a spirit of deeply participatory, bottom-up democracy and a skepticism of both state and traditional civil society intermediaries.
• The mobilizations were far from homogeneous; instead, they drew on—and were challenged by—ideological, generational, and social diversity.
• While ultimate political transformations remain elusive, these movements shifted public discourse, opened new solidarities, and left lasting questions: How do we sustain change? How do we rebuild inclusive civility? Where do new moral foundations for democracy originate?

This summary captures the tone, context, and substance of the episode, highlighting both the empirical findings and the theoretical debates surfaced by the panel.