Yesterday, I suggested that a revolution occurs when the standoff between the irresistable social force (which can comprise more than one interest group) and the (typically) tyrannical immovable object (which might be a singular strongman or a group or a cabal) no longer holds. It takes a spark to light the fire, so to speak.
But why do some revolutions seem to erupt suddenly (like the recent ones in Tunisia and Egypt) and others (like the American revolution) seem to gather momentum first before the spark is ignited?
Perhaps another imagery is that of volcanic activity. The hot lava has to be there in the first place. Its intensity is then a factor. The nature of the physical surface and sub-surface landscape is the other factor. But our understanding of dormant and active volcanoes is still rudimentary; hence surprises can often still occur. The precise timing of many eruptions may only be explained after the fact.
A New York Times article carried in today's Straits Times (15 Feb) attempts to trace the buildup to the Egyptian revolution and the spark that ignited it. The article "Facebook generation the new Arab leading force" (page A8) is a compelling read. It fleshes out a pan-Arab social media-savvy youth movement, which is why the governments in Yemen and Bahrain (and even Saudi Arabia and other Arab regimes), as well as non-Arab Iran, are worried.
The genie is now out of the bottle, so the argument goes.
"if a small group of people in every Arab country went out and persevered as we did, then that would be the end of all the regimes," one flush-with-victory Egyptian youth leader said, adding that the next Arab summit might be "a coming-out party" for all the ascendant youth leaders.
That remains to be seen. Not all the regimes may tumble yet, and the verdict is still out on the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions.
I quoted Barbara Tuchman yesterday, on how today's revolutionary idealists might well become tomorrow's tyrants. Other sobering reflections, by past leaders (and one present opposition leader), are cited below.
John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected ... before a drop of blood was shed.
Vladimir Lenin: It is impossible to predict the time and progress of revolution. It is governed by its own more or less mysterious laws.
Mao Zedong: A revolution is not a dinner party, not an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery. It cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly and modestly.
John F. Kennedy: Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
Aung San Suu Kyi: The quintessential revolution is that of the spirit, born of an intellectual conviction of the need for change in those mental attitudes and values which shape the course of a nation's development. A revolution which aims merely at changing official policies and institutions with a view to an improvement in material conditions has little chance of genuine success. Without a revolution in spirit, the forces which had produced inequities of the old order would continue to be operative, posing a constant threat to the process of reform and regeneration. It is not enough merely to call for freedom, democracy and human rights. There has to be a united determination to persevere in the struggle, to make sacrifices in the name of enduring truths, to resist the corrupting influences of desire, ill will, ignorance, and fear.
No comments:
Post a Comment