T

here’s one good piece of advice that all world leaders or dictators could heed in regards to how to deal with middle- and working-class people: Give them sufficient food and they will give you less trouble because food, after all, is the most important basic necessity.

It was in 1998 when working- and middle-class Indonesians took to the streets to bring to an end
the 32-year autocratic reign of Soeharto. But before the people were longing for a taste of democracy and liberty, it was actually their hunger and bitter economic condition that brought about the transition in
the first place.

Following the monetary crisis in 1997, the Indonesian economy was at its nadir and the ASEAN region was hit by a currency crisis that originated in Thailand, and eventually led to massive currency depreciation in neighborhood countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines.

In Indonesia, the crisis caused the price of basic commodities to rise beyond the reach of common people, and eventually increased the number of Indonesians living below the poverty line.

As people were aimless at that time and had no one to blame for their suffering, they challenged the autocracy and looked to democracy as the solution.

Would Soeharto have lost power if the 1997 economic crisis had not occurred? Of course, there were several other factors that contributed to his downfall.

But if working-class mothers had not been struggling to buy rice and basic necessities at that time, surely their husbands would not have had a reason to loot stores and their children would have had no interest in joining the street protests.

In November last year, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) published the Food Outlook report that forecast a bleak outlook for 2011, with soaring prices of basic commodities and a looming food crisis.

Less than four months after the report was published, the accuracy of its prediction is already evident, as surging global prices of food and basic commodities triggered public uproars that were responsible for the ousting of dictatorial regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, and put other governments in the balance.

Widespread corruption, unfair elections and undemocratic governments have long been a cause for concern among citizens in the Middle East, but it was not until the symptoms of a food crisis in 2011 materialized that the people of both Tunisian and Egyptian truly became fed up with their governments and decided to take matters into their own hands.

In Tunisia, inflated food prices and soaring unemployment were the initial motives behind the
public unrest that led to the resignation of president Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali.

The domino effect then went to Egypt, where people ultimately realized that they were also experiencing the same problem as their neighbors to the West.

Egypt is the world’s largest importer of wheat, the price of which has skyrocketed by more than 50 percent since last year.

Food security has always been a major issue in the country as Egyptians spend about 40 percent of their monthly income on food, compared to 28 percent by the Chinese and 6.1 percent by Americans, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

When the largest portion of your income is spent on food, surely you will suffer greatly when there is a hike in food prices. Hence, it is no wonder that the Egyptians were the first to take the bull by the horns.

It is true that other causes also contribute to the Mideast revolution, such as greedy tyrants who had been clinging to power for too long, or ingrained corruption within the government that the tyrants
nurtured.

Or perhaps the influence of social media, which also deserves recognition as seemingly regimes in China, Iran and North Korea so far have been able to evade the public uproar because their leaders have been notorious for isolating their own people from the Internet.

But food crises irrefutably played a part on the uprisings that lead to the 2011 Mideast revolution. Just recently, Rabah Arezki from the IMF and Markus Brückner from the University of Adelaide publish a research paper that confirms the relation between international food prices and government stability.

Interestingly, their research concludes that there is a positive correlation between food price increases in low-income countries and the likelihood of civil conflict and anti-government demonstrations.

The research is proven true and commonsensical in many ways. For instance, if you were to join an anti-government demonstration, which issue would you be more likely to rally against, corruption or rising food prices?

For some people the answer may differ, but if surging prices of basic commodities start to affect your earnings and your family, you would have a tendency to choose the latter rather than the former. Without a doubt, people are more likely to react strongly to matters that directly affect them, such as rising food prices, compared to other matters like corruption.

FAO recently reported that food prices had reached a new record high in February, and the world is seemingly welcoming a resurgence of a food crisis in 2011.

The case of overthrown governments in Egypt and Tunisia is tangible proof that governments are indeed more susceptible during these times.

This is a serious warning for all seemingly “immortal” dictators from North Korea to Myanmar whose hungry citizens are perhaps next in line to revolt.

The writer is University of Indonesia’s representative for Harvard World Model of United Nations 2011 on the food price crisis committee.