EPB: Determining the Environment for Revolutions in Third World Countries

Challenging the Status Quo

Revolutions in modern times have often been considered to be limited to those states in the Third (developing) World. A common perception is that due to the Third World’s low economical strength, often accompanied by widespread poverty, leads nationals are more likely to become disillusioned with the current regime. This is believed to escalate to the point where a collective grouping of the population initiates uprisings. This perception emerges from the hypothesis that misery breed’s revolt. When in fact, if this were the case, then most of the masses would be in uproar. Another common misconstruction is nations that experience widespread poverty are easily shaped by professional revolutionaries. Such Revolutionaries are paid off or influenced by foreign powers who are furthering their own foreign interests. Although foreign powers do play a part in shaping impoverished nations, and are able to pay off certain facets of indigenous control, the widespread support needed for a revolution transcends the capability and influence that a foreign power would need to possibly orchestrate such a situation. Finally, both of these theories fail to explain why some Third World nations experience revolutionary movements, let alone successful ones, when others do not at all. Therefore it is necessary to re-examine the conditions under which contemporary Third World nations experience revolutions, rather than presuming it is solely due to their impoverished state. This begs the question, why do some nations experience revolutions while some do not?       

Historic Revolutions

Over the past two centuries revolutions were once a much more widespread activity in which regimes would be forcibly changed for other supposedly more popular governments and leaderships. Many states that have now cemented their prominence in world power, economics and prestige; experienced revolutions during their transition to their present form. In the 18^th Century, The globe’s current dominant power, the United States experienced its revolution against British rule in order to determine its own future through self-governorship. While the French experienced multiple regime changes through revolutionary movements between the 18^th and 19^th Centuries. Finally, Russia also experienced its most significant revolution in 1917 in which the Tsarist (monarchical) autocracy was replaced with a Communist regime. Despite widespread revolutions of the past, such occurrences have become limited and are now often thought to occur more often in Third World countries. However, the reasoning behind wether or not a revolution will take place, or even succeed cannot be based upon a nations economic success, but rather its institutional conglomeration, which can often correlate with economic terms.          

The Environment for a Revolution 

Revolutions happen in both wealthy nations and those without a strong economy, however in recent years, uprisings and successful revolutions have been more prevalent in Third World nations than anywhere else. The reasoning behind this is now understood to be because of state failures to create institutions that include or incorporate diverse social groupings into its own political system. Examples of this include Iran, under the rule of the Shah; Libya under Colonial Gaddafi; and 1959 Cuba under Batista. All of which regimes had leaderships in which government power was not widely spread to serve the interests of the majority of the population. This leadership type is called by Eisenstadt and Goldstone as being “Neo-patrimonial”, and is defined as being centred around one key individual who determines nearly all government policy, with extremely limited bureaucratization of state institutions, administrations or the armed forces. In turn this leaves the state’s capabilities being left to a single leader to determine, and whichever advisors he so choses to favour. Such a situation leaves the majority of the population, be they lower, middle or upper class, feeling excluded and separated from their countries policy decisions. Another environment in which a revolution is more likely to occur is if the nation is under direct colonial rule. This type of ruling comes about when foreign colonisers create government institutions in which they take all available offices. This excludes the indigenous population from ever being able to attain such roles resulting in a countries policy being determined by the best interests of foreigners rather than those living in the country itself. Therefore nations under both patrimonial and direct colonial rule are both unlikely to reform or incorporate the greater populations interests, as the very form of rule does not cater to the masses. As a result social moderates, reformers and the oppressed are not able to voice their concerns or push for change. This leaves only one possible action left for those who are dissatisfied with the current regime, and that is to uprise, rebel, and ultimately revolutionize in order to change the nations policy. 

  

Determining Revolutionary Success

Although certain political regimes create environments in which revolutions are more likely to occur, this does not mean that a revolution will be able to mobilize, let alone succeed in toppling the current government. It is impossible for revolutionary parties to create a nationwide revolution on their own with attaining popular support from certain groups in society, which is why revolutions are not particularly widespread anymore. Gugler and Dix argue that without widespread participation from the majority of a nations population, that is a coalition between multiple social groups and classes, a revolution is unlikely to succeed. Even if a revolutionary party does succeed in taking power; unless it has the support of a coalition of groups, such a revolution is likely to be followed by further revolutions. 

It is therefore necessary for a revolutionary movement to be able to effectively and efficiently mobilise groups that have been excluded from the political system. Huntington states that if a regime wishes to remain in power it should incorporate such groups into representation thus making it more difficult for a revolution. However, in order for groups to be able to mobilise, the state cannot have full control over its territory, or such mobilisation would be impossible. This makes states that are fragmented, or with weak armed forces, more susceptible to such uprisings. Finally Popkin claims that in order to win the necessary popular support, a revolutionary movement must be able to prove that they can provide promised local goals with immediate pay offs. Without the power to do this, the masses will never believe in a mere ideological revolution without a basis. 

Conclusion

Revolutions in Third World nations are more likely to happen in countries that are more centred around one autocratic individual or colonial government.  Although revolutionary parties or political groups are found in nearly every country, this does not mean that a revolution will take place. Clustered, contained uprisings may happen, but for a revolution the occur throughout a state, three factors in the state’s environment must be in place. The state cannot have full control over its territorial boarders, multiple class and societal coalitions must emerge in the larger revolutionary group, and the revolution must be able to guarantee immediate payoffs that cater to local goals. Therefore revolutions are often limited to specific places, as reforms, orderly regime change, and transitional governments prevent populations from seeing a reason for uprising. Furthermore Third World regimes that do include a significant portion of societal groupings are less likely to come under threat of revolutions despite being economically weak. This is because revolutions must be widely accepted and participated in by the local population. As a result, revolutions are limited and do not occur in every state in which the masses are experiencing ‘misery’. 

 Sources

Goodwin, Jeff, and Theda Skocpol. "Explaining revolutions in the contemporary Third World." Politics & Society 17.4 (1989): 489-509.

Samuel Mani 300289117