This paper aims to address the often-lamented democracy bias of social movement concepts by using two recent instances of mobilization under authoritarian rule that have garnered wide-spread attention: the so called Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, as well as the large scale demonstrations in Egypt. In comparing these two cases, I will pursue the question as to whether mobilization under non-democratic conditions is actually substantially different from that under democratic ones, and what we can take away from that analysis for our conceptual tools more generally. On the surface, both movements seem to be significantly alike. Both are situated in the Middle East, both involve large scale mobilization, started by accumulating economic grievances and leading to demands for the ouster of a dictator. Whereas mobilization in Tunisia has already accomplished that much its success has come as a significant surprise to observers and activists alike, both within Tunisia as well as in its neighbouring countries, and is sure to have elicited much uneasiness on part of many Arab dictators. While similar at first, the rapidly unfolding events in Egypt seem to indicate important departures from the Tunisian case, with the most likely scenario as of now being not the falling of a dictatorship, but more likely a coup through the backdoor by the security establishment save-guarding its privileges. The similarity of the two cases, as well as the emerging, differences make them an ideal basis for illuminating some important points of mobilization under authoritarian rule on an empirical, as well as a theoretical level. Moreover, the questions they pose are of acute relevance not only for the study of social movements, but also for the study of authoritarianism more broadly speaking.
