According to Jack A. Goldstone, a writer for Foreign Affairs and author of "Understanding the Revolutions of 2011: Weakness and Resilience in Middle Eastern Autocracies", there are several factors that need to coincide in order for a revolution to succeed.
First, the government must seem so horrible, so poor at running the country or so unequal about it, that it is commonly thought a threat to the country's future.
Second, the elites, particularly those in the military, must be alienated from the government and therefor unwilling to defend it.
Third, a large portion of the population, ignoring various divides or barriers posed by gender, race, religion, or the like, must band together.
Finally, international powers must either avoid becoming involved with the government or must prevent the government from using it's full might to defend itself.
How do these compare to our revolutions? Generally speaking, I think that these do need to be present in a revolution. For example, in India, Britain was the ruling power, and the majority of India's population, that native Indians, agreed that it was not acting in their best interests. The population that thought this was the population native to India, and this belief crossed boundaries of ethnicity, religion, community, and economic class. The soldiers British military in India, as often as not, was either unused to the climate, or was either Hindu or Muslim, and therefore offended by the grease used on the bullets, which was made of a mix of pig and cow fat. The elites around the world, on the other hand, were drawn into interest in the conflict by Gandhi's charisma and the unique protest techniques his followers were using. This gave the elites pause in attacking the protesters, and drew the international community into the issue. That everyone was so interested in the revolution, because of sheer press coverage, prevented international intervention
First, the government must seem so horrible, so poor at running the country or so unequal about it, that it is commonly thought a threat to the country's future.
Second, the elites, particularly those in the military, must be alienated from the government and therefor unwilling to defend it.
Third, a large portion of the population, ignoring various divides or barriers posed by gender, race, religion, or the like, must band together.
Finally, international powers must either avoid becoming involved with the government or must prevent the government from using it's full might to defend itself.
How do these compare to our revolutions? Generally speaking, I think that these do need to be present in a revolution. For example, in India, Britain was the ruling power, and the majority of India's population, that native Indians, agreed that it was not acting in their best interests. The population that thought this was the population native to India, and this belief crossed boundaries of ethnicity, religion, community, and economic class. The soldiers British military in India, as often as not, was either unused to the climate, or was either Hindu or Muslim, and therefore offended by the grease used on the bullets, which was made of a mix of pig and cow fat. The elites around the world, on the other hand, were drawn into interest in the conflict by Gandhi's charisma and the unique protest techniques his followers were using. This gave the elites pause in attacking the protesters, and drew the international community into the issue. That everyone was so interested in the revolution, because of sheer press coverage, prevented international intervention
No comments:
Post a Comment