The revolution in Egypt for three weeks dominated headlines, television and political discussion worldwide. To all watching, it seemed that fundamental change was in the air and that a people oppressed for decades was finally getting a chance at liberty. Indeed, the protests centered in Tahrir Square were fueled by a deep disgust with the regime that has ruled Egypt since 1981 and by the desire for a fair, representative and responsible government. After 18 days of demonstrations it seemed that the protesters had achieved their goal: Hosni Mubarak resigned as President and the military that replaced him pledged to carry the country toward democracy. It's probably a little too soon, however, to pop the champagne and start celebrating the birth of representative democracy in Egypt. Revolutions don't always turn out as their participants hope.
There are many examples of revolutions turning away from their original goals, from the French Revolution in 1789 to the Iranian revolt against the shah in 1979. To make my point, I'll stick with two more recent cases: Ukraine in 2004 and Kyrgyzstan in 2005. Both were former Soviet republics and went through dramatic upheavals and changes as part of the wave of "color revolutions" that were exalted as proof of the unstoppable advance of democracy. Yet in both cases, the governments put in place by revolutionary efforts turned out to only offer the same corruption and weaknesses as the regimes they had replaced.
In Ukraine the upheaval revolved around an election. Then−President Leonid Kuchma, who had ruled the country since its independence from the Soviet Union, was leaving office and had groomed a successor, Viktor Yanukovych, to replace him. Kuchma was widely unpopular, having presided over a decade of economic downturn and repressive governance. The people of Ukraine longed for a change and joined around a broad coalition led by a former prime minister, Viktor Yushchenko.
The pro−Russian conservative forces led by Yanukovych and Kuchma grew alarmed at the strength of the democracy movement and made several attempts to eliminate it as a threat, allegedly going so far as to poison Yushchenko prior to the election. When the votes came in, it was clear that the government had massively rigged the election and groups led by Yushchenko began their protests in Independence Square. The protests were almost completely peaceful and within days had reached crowds of 500,000. After two months, the Yanukovych government agreed to redo the election and Yushchenko won by a landslide. He then proclaimed a new era of democratic governance in Ukraine and was championed as a beacon of democracy.
Elements of that story will no doubt sound very familiar to the reader. Massive governmental corruption, failure to provide basic services and widespread public protest all closely match the experience of the protesters in Tahrir Square. The story of Ukraine's revolution, however, does not end with Yushchenko's election. During his six years in office, the democratic coalition frayed, the economy failed to improve and Ukrainian politics grew more vicious than ever as the government's propensity for infighting became apparent. Over time, Ukrainians came to despise Yushchenko just as much as they had Kuchma, if not more. In the 2010 presidential election, Yushchenko won only 5.5 percent of the vote and had to give up his office to the very man he and others had revolted against in 2004: Viktor Yanukovych. Plainly, Ukraine's Orange Revolution did not turn out as the people hoped.
Ukraine is not the only country that has aimed for greater democracy and missed. Kyrgyzstan in 2005 became the fifth country to join the wave of "Color Revolutions" sweeping that part of the world. Many of you have likely never heard of Kyrgyzstan, and I can't blame you. The only reason I know about it is because I was there. I saw the Tulip Revolution with my own eyes. Mobs swept into the capital city, clamoring for the resignation of President Askar Akayev, who had blatantly rigged a recent parliamentary election. Over a period of days marked by limited violence, arson and looting, the government fell, and Akayev fled to Russia, resigning several days later. To someone who had never left North America before and who had certainly never given thought to struggles for democracy, the Tulip Revolution was both frightening and awe−inspiring. I thought I had witnessed a fundamental shift in the politics of the region, a step along the inevitable path towards democracy. My hopes, however, were premature.
The revolutionary forces had achieved their goals — Akayev had resigned, a new government was put in place and the constitution was amended within months of the end of unrest. Former Prime Minister Kurmanbek Bakiev, who had led one of the main opposition groups in the revolution, was made acting president and was later elected in a major landslide. But as in Ukraine, the faces had changed while the policies had not. Kyrgyzstan continued to experience economic hardship and brutal repression, while Bakiev turned to be just as corrupt as Akayev had been. Another coup d'etat swept Bakiev from power within five years, proving that the Tulip Revolution had been a dismal failure.
Revolution in Egypt has come and gone. The country is now in a period of consolidation, with opposition leaders attempting to work with the military to ease the country toward democracy. The failure of past revolutions described in this article in no way means that Egypt's bid for democracy is doomed to fail. In any case, the courage and resilience of the Egyptian people is awe−inspiring and worthy of admiration and could very well result in a more democratic Egypt. However, protesters demonstrated great courage and resilience in each of the examples given above. A mass desire for democracy is often not enough to secure it. This article is not a prediction. Instead, it is aimed at those who are (prematurely, in my opinion) celebrating the rise of democracy and equality in the Middle East. Things can still go wrong.
--
