Well, when I think about revolution, the first thing that comes to my mind, and I'm proud to say it, is Tracy Chapman's song 'Talkin' About A Revolution (click on the thread title to watch a sweet video). She's awesome. I don't care what any of you say. This song is powerful!
Anyway. Considering this course is based on the theories and models that bring about revolutions and the effect these have on the politics of the state, and the results they bring about for other states who are on the brink of revolutions themselves. The proclaimed Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan in 2005 which ousted then-President Akayev, wasn't actually a revolution at all. The new President Bakiev proclaimed to rid the country of the corruption that crippled the country, as well as filling the pockets of Akayev. But, this proclamation by Bakiev was empty. The country quickly went down the same route that Akayev led it.
Until last month, Kyrgyzstan was crippled by the same corrupt dictatorial leadership that it had been suffering under Akayev. The government was overthrown with military involvement and has opened the gap for the next President to be in the same position as Bakiev. The most important thing for the international community and and observers to do in the face of this recent revolution, is to ensure that the new government doesnt implement a new leader who is going to take it upon themselves to extort the country's finances for their own benefit. Transperency is key. Honesty is paramount. But how is a country who's history is so jaded and corrupt, (perhaps the old Soviet way of life is shining through) going to get through this tough time and form a new, democratic government, that is the solution they want. I hope I can help once this course finishes. Until then, I'll keep listening to Tracy.
N., it's true that the "Tulip revolution" didn't change much (see some of the news articles here: http://delicious.com/xmarquez/kyrgyzstan). But why?
ReplyDeleteOne interesting theory I've heard mentioned is that the government was too rotten: it was too easy to overthrow, so dissatisfied members of the elite are easily able to command a small mob and basically chase the current president. If this is true, it suggests that too deep divisions in the elite might be problematic for transitions to democracy.
Another view is that revolution succeeded in Kyrgyzstan for reasons having to do with the "example" of other countries, but in fact the country was too unequal, and its economy too undeveloped, to really sustain democracy - so we might see further revolutions but no stable democracy. On the other hand, we might be surprised...
I find what N. pointed about about the influence of past leaders on current leaders interesting. To me it seems like a vicious cycle. After a revolution takes place and a dictator is removed, what incentives are there for the new leader to create a democracy rather than reaping in the benefits of power.
ReplyDeleteXavier, are you saying that a country needs to be equal and have a developed economy in order for a revolution to result in a democracy?
If this is correct, is this the reason for the apparent "waves" of revolutions? As countries usually develop economically as clusters or groups from the same geographical area.
Leonie, apparent waves may have more to do with the power of example than with the level of economic development (informational cascades, to be more technical). But it is possible that countries at similar levels of economic development become "ripe" for revolution at similar times.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your other point, I'm not sure. Some countries sustain democracy in quite unfavorable conditions. It could be that after a few overthrowings Kyrgyzstani elites decide that they would be better off attempting to uphold the rules of democracy rather than undermining it. (One could use an argument in the Przeworski reading in the course notes to support this idea).
I definitely see the importance of examples in revolutions, but this could not have influenced the first revolutions. The more revolutions I read about, the more I realise that although most have some kind of similarity, there are also some which are completely different. And depending on which revolutions are examined, depends on which factor (whether it is informational cascades, or divisions within the elite) is stated to be the predominant factor in causing a revolution.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, i am wondering whether it is really practical or even possible to examine revolutions in a general manner?
Or is it easier, when grasping the concept of a revolution, to focus on each country separately?
Yes, the first revolutions could not be understood in terms of example.
ReplyDeleteAs for our question about whether it is possible to examine revolutions in a general matter: it all depends on what you are trying to achieve. General theories and concepts will be necessary to make sense of any revolution, and it is likely that you will find instances of cascades and elite divisions in all revolutions. How exactly they develop in a particular case will be unique, but it is unlikely that you will be able to make sense of them without using general ideas.