Acceso usuarios
Matthieu Rey
In November 1952, massive riots took place in Baghdad. The riots lasted for at least one week. They were called the "Intifadah". This Intifadah has been analyzed for its political impact without considering the actual events. I intend to study the different parties involved in these riots and their motivations. The Intifadah is very interesting also because it occured four years after other massive riots, the Wathba. Indeed, comparing the two events can help understanding the experiences that crowds and their leaders acquired during these events. It is thus possible to understand how the "Iraqi street" impacted on the power and how it became an arena between the different oppositional forces. I intend to draw an analytical description focusing on the continuity and the differences between the Wathba and the Intifadah.
First of all, it seems that the Intifadah followed the same patterns as the Wathba. Students and workers reached together the street to demonstrate. They tried to merge and to make an assault on some institutions. This merger can only be understood if we take the support of political parties into consideration. However, the traditional pattern reached a peak during the first two days, showing that students, workers and activists had acquired political experience since 1948. It also prove that demonstrations had become an usual way of contestations in Iraq.
Secondly, the differences between the 1952 Intifadah and the 1948 Wathba have to be discussed. Both had a diplomatic cause, both involved numerous crowds and both were quickly transformed into a massive popular movement. Therefore, a detailed analysis of these two movements seems to be relevant: who reacted to the demonstrations and how? When and through which forms did different groups engaged in the riots? An explanation of these two events can be proposed through a historical and sociological analysis. However the Intifadah is specific by its violences. The demonstrators' targets and their violent behaviour have to be explained to show how riots might help supporting political, economical and national claims. In this way, the Intifadah marked a new stage in Iraqi history.
Thirdly, it seems that this period is also insightful for a new way of governance. Indeed, the Intifadah of 1952 occured after the political field's standstill. That was a direct result of the Palestine war in 1948. Before the Intifadah, Iraq was governed by emergency laws, that made any participation and any critical attitude against the government, impossible. Consequently, the opposition to the government did not organize any longer as a political party, but chose instead an "exit" strategy. This observation helps us to explain that the majority of the politicians who participated in the riots asked to change electoral law and required political freedom. Even though all opposition groups went to the street together, not all of them defended the same goals. Nevertheless, the Communist, the Independent and the National Democratic Party, tried to use the demonstrations aiming to become a part of the general political field.
En novembre 1952, de vastes manifestations prennent place à Bagdad puis s'étendent aux principales villes irakiennes. Ces journées d'émeutes sont rapidement appelées « Intifâda ». Elles s'inscrivent dans une certaine continuité de la geste protestataire, quatre ans après le déroulement de la Wathba. Il s'agit ici de restituer les dynamiques multiples qui prennent place dans les émeutes de novembre 1952, tout en proposant, par la comparaison à d'autres épisodes d'émeutes, un tableau des motifs communs ou propres de ce mode de contestation. Pourquoi et comment des populations entrent-elles en lutte ? Quelle place la violence prend-elle ? En quoi son usage définit-il un trait particulier du déroulement des événements de novembre 1952 ? À travers une interrogation historique et sociologique, il est possible de préciser le répertoire d'actions et les acteurs de l'espace public irakien au début des années 1950. Par ailleurs, le recours à l'émeute doit être situé au sein des modalités du dialogue politique. La place de groupements politiques légaux ou illégaux dans la rue et leur usage de la violence s'inscrivent largement dans une volonté de se rendre visible au pouvoir, qui, en retour, utilise des modes de coercition ou de négociation pour répondre et arrêter le processus émeutier. Cette dimension paraît essentielle pour rendre compte de la dimension politique présente au c�ur de l'émeute et comprendre comment cette dernière appartient à un ensemble d'interactions entre les autorités, les groupements politiques et les différents acteurs mobilisés.
