Also,what can we learn from how past revolutions turned out (like the aftermath of the Russian Revolution vs. the aftermath of the American revolution for example). I look forward to seeing all of your responses.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
What happens next?
The recent events in the Middle East continue to interest me, especially as they relate to this class. Egypt has recently overthrown its president of 30 years and the army has assumed temporary control of the country. My question is, after the excitement of activism and revolution, what happens next? How important is it, in the process of questioning authority, to have a plan in action after you have successfully questioned authority? How much responsibility, if any, does the questioning party have in reestablishing order after breaking down the previous authority? How does a society prevent another corrupt authority figure from taking over? What about anarchism?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I think that what happens after all of the excitement is gone is the most important part of a revolution. It tests whether or not the country or new country can stand together and create a new order. Take the U.S for example, the Articles of Confederation were a total disaster! If our country would have stuck to that, we definitely would not be where we are today. When establishing a new government, it is important to look at the faults of the old order as well as what worked. Obviously, leaders are not going to have a clear answer on what to do, but they need to come to a general consensus on what they plan to accomplish through a new government. Otherwise, it will fall apart once more.
The revolution and activism is the fun part; it's rebellious and allows people to openly express their opinions. However, after the "revolting power" is successful in accomplishing their goals is where all of the real work begins. That party has to feel immense pressure because they overthrew the government or some organization because they felt that they were not doing their jobs, or that they could do those people's jobs better. Now they put themselves in the position where they have to bring about positive change and do so quickly so that they can remain in control and still have the support of the rest of their party. Even more, they have to try to please all of the desires of their party to keep from another revolt happening against them.
I personally am not a fan of history in the least bit, but it is always said that we have to study history, so that we don't repeat past mistakes. I believe that this is true. Along with the world developing technology, communication and transportation, etc., we are trying to develop our government and relations with other countries. We have to take into consideration the faults in our past failures and mishaps to be able to move forward and progress as a country. This also relates to learning from past failed or success revolutions, it is a basis for future action.
I definitely think that, when a group leads a revolution that successfully overthrows the governmental body, it is their job to put a (hopefully) more effective form of rule and government in its place. If they don't take responsibility to do so after dissolving the previous authority chances are no one will and either the previous authority will resume that position or the area will degrade into anarchy, and I don't think either of these are desirable (at the very least for those who are questioning authority and leading revolution). I therefore think that the group who overthrows the existing authority should take responsibility to institute their own form of rule.
Additionally, I think that, in order to be effective and realistic in questioning authority, it is necessary that a person or group at leasts attempts to put themselves in the place of the authority, and decide if or how things could be done better and what they would change if they were in power. I think this provides a basis for reasons for questioning the group of authority, allows an inherently solid argument for why they are right and why things need to be changed, and, if it progresses to the point of overthrowing the existing authority, provides well thought out plans for how to perform the job of the overthrown authority.
I agree with bridget- what happens after the revolution is highly important. One thing to keep in mind: the aftermath can take years to resolve. As she stated, the Articles of Confederation were a total disaster and the Constitution only came into effect after 1783. Rebuilding a country, especially after a total revolution, takes time.
Personally, I feel that a successful revolution is fought over ideology, as opposed to specific demands. Flexibility is key. If the reasons that a country is founded upon become obsolete after a generation or two, then it is much more difficult to retain sovereignty and preserve national pride. Flexibility also makes it far easier to resist corruption- problems and issues can be addressed and dealt with before things reach a crisis point. The US Constitution, for example, is viable because it can be amended, to stay relevant with the changing times.
Also, the questioning party should have a responsibility in reestablishing order. There is nothing worse than people who constantly veto and reject ideas without offering any sort of solution- it's always easier to tear something down, than to build it up, which is often what causes revolutions to fail. In order for the Egyptian revolution to succeed, there must be a consensus (or a willingness to compromise) on how the new government will be run and how it will interact with the Egyptian peoples.
I honestly think that having an 'after' plan is the most important part. Anyone can get angry and have an opinion, and anyone can join a riot, but not everyone can run a country, especially not in a well-mannered respect. If you overthrow a dictatorship or an oppressor or whatever, someone running the country badly, that is impressive, but once you've done that, you need to have a plan in order for more chaos not to break out. Leaders need to be chosen, and a plan of how everything is going to be handelled needs to set our before hand, at least a general outline. Using the United States as an example, we had strong leaders who were able to help run the country in the aftermath, and at first they just set out a list of how everything was going to be run, and then with time, age, wisdom, and experience, they were able to refine these laws to something that fit the majority of the people, and this still goes on today with all the bills that are being passed/repealed/submitted that people want passed because of the changing society (gay marriage, guns, etc, that's kind og vague, I know, but I don't really follow politics).
Having a plan of action after a revolution is extremely important. Anarchy is not the answer simply because it leaves an opportunity for another oppressor to rise to power. This is what happened in Iran. The transition was too sudden and too violent.
Another government must being enacted immediately to keep the people's best interest at heart. After revolution, the changes need to be slow to work.
The questioning party needs to take fully responsibly for the revolution. They need to provide stability for the fledgling government.
The American Revolution was obviously successful. This was due somewhat to the fact that a small government was already in place. While the many of the documents were flawed, like the Articles of Confederation, total anarchy did not reign. Order was retained.
I had a couple more thoughts about how it is best to make change reading others comments.
Do you think it works best for a group desiring to make change to overthrow the government in a revolution or to make changes in the government through whatever means they have available?
Also, is it better for a group that has successfully overthrown a government to take the time to put a very good system of government in place or just put something in place that will work for the time being, letting the kinks be worked out later?
I completely agree that the most important part of any revolution is what happens after the protesting is done. The protests and the demonstrations are the things that everyone pays attention to, but they are really just the beginning steps towards an even greater long term goal. I think that it is also important for the leaders of a revolution to have some form of action in place to improve conditions in their society. They need to have the foresight to not only say "this is bad," but also "this is how it could be better."
There is no "one size fits all" strategy to questioning authority or starting a revolution, but I do think that successful revolutions involve some kind of "step 2" for after the initial uprising. Also, I think learning from past mistakes as well as past successes is important in building up a stable, beneficial new government.
I certainly believe that there needs to be a plan in place because otherwise it is likely to fall into the hands of the wrong person or group of people. There are countless examples of when revolution has been mishandled and in return the results have been even more devastating. The instance in Cuba in the '50s is a perfect example. After the revolution, Fidel Castro came into power and ended up being an even worse dictator. Bin Laden is another example. He took over after the people demanded a change but he was not one of the rebels nor was he the people's choice but rather, arguably, put in place by the United States in order to supply a stable government. That did not turn out so well. Hitler, once again, was a case of this when Germany had taken a fall and he rose to power through the demands of the people purely because he was willing to lead and take on the responsibility. A country in revolution is at a very unstable and delicate moment in history and without proper planning and follow-through from the rebels, the situation will either remain the same or become even worse after. I believe that those who begin the revolution are partly responsible, however it is the responsibility of all the citizens of the country to come together and ensure their voices are heard and that the change they want to see actually happens and the problem is not merely masked with a quick-fix fall-through answer.
I think that the immediate aftermath of a revolution is a very important question. So many passionately run into a revolution without thinking about what happens if it is successful. I believe having military generals run a country after it has been taken over is probably a good idea because they can maintain law and order, as well as keep a structured living environment. I believe that the group responsible for an overthrow has total responsibility for seeing the betterment of the people. It is their job to put the pieces back together, which they should not be opposed to due to the fact that the revolution was probably started to be able to put everything back into order. It is important to have a system developed quickly because that is when ruthless dictators thrive. They come up with a seemingly good system that everyone clings to for lack of alternatives. Anarchism is impossible as laws used to protect human life become null. Past revolutions have been kind of a pass/fail situation. Obviously certain ones do not work such as the Bolshevik Revolution. I mean the revolution itself worked and had a worthy cause, but the system implemented afterwards was a fail. The American Revolution, however, was clearly successful based on the fact that we are living proof of its aftermath. So whether revolutions produce good or bad results depends on good planning and a proper system of government in the end.
The past shows us that we absolutely need to have a concrete plan ready for the new government before usurping the old. If not, then chaos will ensue and nobody wins when that happens.
By setting out a stable plan, and appointing someone who is aware of this plan and supports it, the new government ensures that there is not a corrupt authority figure who will preside over the new regime and give it a bad name.
The questioning party also carries the most responsibility in reestablishing order because if they don't it'll be their fault when everything falls into chaos and they'll lose all their supporters. For this same reason, they want to reestablish order as quickly as possible to prevent bloodshed and loss of citizens.
I think previous revolutions are the most important learning tools for the future. Through them, we can learn what works and what doesn't. For example, the French Revolution wasn't the most stable revolt. It needed a clear leader or at least a government plan. Without a plan, anarchy takes over. In rare cases this may work out, but overall the instability of anarchy can destroy infrastructure. Another example of a revolution is the American revolution. This was far more organized than the French one, and that speaks to its success.
I think that the biggest issue facing the future of the Middle East is the lack of a leader. If we look at the revolutions in Egypt and Libya, in both cases, the people have stood up against their current governments, but they really do not have a plan for the future. Most successful revolutions and protests rely on a central figure to lead and represent the entire group. In Egypt, due to the lack of a leader, the army is now in control. History has shown us that having the military in power is never good for the creation of democracy. Hosni Mubarak was a high level military official before he became president and the same could now easily happen again.
The questioning party have complete responsibility in reestablishing order. Once again, however, this could be very difficult without a strong leader to bring the country together. Hopefully, the people should be able to vote in an entirely new government. This will be difficult, as I imagine many people have different ideas about how the new government should be run. In order to prevent a bad government forming again, it is imperative that everybody works together to form a government which the majority will support. The Middle East could easily fall into anarchism if a new, stable, democratic, and equal government is not formed as people begin to lose faith in what they had fought for.
Nobody can say what lies ahead for the region. It is difficult to compare these revolutions to that of the United States and Russia. The Arab world is totally different from our own. It is quite possible that democracy is simply incompatible with the systems which have been in place in the region for centuries. Another big factor is US and European involvement. In the past, countries might have sent armies to support one side or another, but now the only foreign involvement, especially in Libya, is with the oil companies. Companies like BP work closely with the Libyan government for oil rights, and I think they will do whatever it takes to ensure that their rights and their oil are protected.
History is a tool so that we may learn from it. What has happened is used by us in order to learn how to assure that the future does not turn out the same as the past and is always available for us to improve upon. In the revolution of Texas where Texas was seperated from Mexico, success would not have been capable had the forces of Houston not been as well organized and strategic as they were. As compared to the Russian revolution which as far as what I think left the country far worse off. The party responsible for enacting revolt should be held accountable for rebuilding the country after the revolution takes place. The better planned the aftermath is planned even before the revolution ensues, the greater the possibility of achieving a greater stability after the breaking of the previous authority is successful. As in the American revolution, this country would not have been so stable as it is now had it not been for the planning of the aftermath to leave this country as a democracy and with an organized government to lead it.
I agree with Bridget that the aftermath of a revolution is the most important part of it. To truly create a revolution, the rebelling party is responsible for establishing the society that they rebelled to get. It would be difficult to achieve exactly what they had hoped for so some flexibility would be required as long as they maintain the central ideals they started with. At least a somewhat clear plan of action for the aftermath is vital because without one, like Jimmy said, you get the French revolution and not the American Revolution.
Post a Comment