At the risk of being oversimplistic, a politically-driven event like the "people's power" Egyptian revolution can be depicted as an irresistible force meeting an unmovable object (Mubarak, who eventually did relinquish power). But uncertainty persists about what will happen next.
No two revolutions are exactly alike; many had failed while stillborn (the "force" had fizzled out or the "object" had been still too powerful?) and many "successful" revolutions -- of all stripes -- have been invariably subsequently romanticised or glorified.
Take the French revolution (1789-99). It was long-drawn and messy and although later glorified in the French motto -- Liberty, Equality, Fraternity -- there was a reign of terror by the revolutionaries. And for what? For Napolean Bonaparte to stage a coup in 1799 and declare himself emperor!
The American historian Barbara Tuchman was so despairing of the track record of revolutions that she declared: "Every successful revolution puts on in time the robes of the tyrant it has deposed."
She did not assess the American revolution (1775-83) itself, but the initial euphoria there -- following Patrick Henry's rousing "Give me liberty or give me death" speech -- did not last and the new country plunged into a civil war (1861-65).
Still, no one can deny that both the French and American revolutions had thrown off a repressive "immovable" yoke (the ancien regime and the British colonial power respectively) and are today stable Western democracies (with warts and all, of course).
We still don't know how the Egyptian revolution will pan out. The military has asserted itself, albeit declaring it is a caretaker. Will it take the route of the Philippine people power revolution (1986) and hand over executive power to a civilian government or will it become the creature Tuchman worried about?
No comments:
Post a Comment