Jay C Colburn II GOVT 731

3/2/2011

The International Relations of Revolutions in the 21st Century

Questions surrounding the origins, processes, and outcomes of revolutions have intrigued people for centuries. Scholars since the 19th century, and if various forms long before, have probed the inner workings of revolutions, the many intricate processes, structures, and individuals, involved in bringing about structural and/or social changes in a given country. There is no one universally agreed upon definition for revolution. While the definition continues to be debated by scholars, there is generally an understanding that there are two basic characteristics common to all revolutions: 1) the overthrow of an existing regime through extralegal means, and 2) the establishment of a new political and sometimes socioeconomic system by the new regime.1 Although revolutions may involve drastic changes in the political and often socioeconomic systems within a country, they can also have widespread international effects. Given the interconnectedness of the global economy in the 21st century, significant changes in political leadership, even without major socioeconomic changes, can have immediate and sometimes major impacts on world markets as well as regional stability and global alliances. Scholar Jeff Goodwin wrote a chapter titled "Is the Age of Revolutions Over?"2 History has answered that question; in the ten years since it was published, numerous revolutions have occurred throughout the world, the most recent being the string of uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) that led to the ousting of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak as well as Tunisia's Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in early 2011. These events provide an opportunity to

Katz, Mark N. 2001. "The International Dimensions of Revolution: An Introduction." In Revolution: International Dimensions. edited by Mark N. Katz. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, p.5. 2 Goodwin, Jeff. 2001. "Is the Age of Revolutions Over?" In Revolution: International Dimensions. edited by Mark N. Katz. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Jay C Colburn II GOVT 731

3/2/2011

revisit and perhaps rethink the current dominant understanding of the origins, processes, and outcomes of revolutions. The study of revolution in the social science can be broken down into four specific generations of theories used to understand and explain the causes and outcomes of revolutionary events. The first generation of the 1920s and 1930s approached revolution through theories of natural history. These theories were mostly descriptive in nature and compared various

revolutions, mainly the English (1640), American (1776), French (1789), and Russian (1917) revolutions. From these comparisons, scholars extracted patterns of events common among the revolutionary cases, from decreasing support of the regime to government crisis and regime collapse to post-revolutionary power struggles. The second generation theories, developed in the 1950s and 1960s, can be divided by their three different approaches: the psychological approach, which focused on relative deprivation and frustration that would lead to mass uprisings; the social institutional approach, which claimed that institutional imbalances brought about openings for the questioning and calling for the change of the status quo; and the resource mobilization approach, which focused on the need for groups to have resource and organization in order for success. In these attempts to make more widely applicable frameworks for understanding

revolutions in general, as opposed to the descriptive theories. The common theme among these second generation theories is their searching for where and how revolutions occur, but there is still little attention paid to the international dimensions of revolutions. The third generation of scholars' theories addressed structural aspects of revolutionary processes. Barrington Moore understood that different types of societies experienced different types of change, and his and other scholars' (like Theda Skocpol) works have investigated the structural causes involved in state weaknesses, state/elite conflict, and popular uprisings. In the

Jay C Colburn II GOVT 731

3/2/2011

structural investigations of revolutions, much more detailed analyses of international relations in revolutions is given. States may be weak due to international conflicts, providing an opportunity for opposition groups. As the 20th and century progressed, the increased and enhanced

economic, social, and political ties, not only between states but also the individuals and cultures of the states' populations, have become constituent and dynamic aspects of everyday life. Economic alliances, like trade agreements, as well as political-military alliances, like NATO, create shared interests and threats among otherwise independent countries. Exploring the

structural aspects of the origins, processes, and outcomes of revolutions helped uncover the more pronounced international role of revolutions. The movement towards a fourth generation of theories provides a wide array of approaches for refining the current knowledge on revolutions, all with a focus on revolutionary processes, understanding how these processes develop from origin to outcome, with particular attention to ideology and agency. It can be useful to conceptualize revolutions taking place in three main arenas whose conditions affect and are involved in its development: state and international conditions; elite conditions; and popular conditions.3 The international dimension of revolutions is explicitly included as one of the main aspects of revolutions, but it also has an understated but important role in elite and popular conditions as well. A focus on agency, that the decisions of individuals can have important impacts, and ideology also frequently include aspects of international influence. Noted in the fourth generation literature is the observation that not only can international relations affect revolutions through political, economic, and social impacts, but revolutions can also affect international relations in major ways. Mark Katz has named three effects that revolutions can have on international relations: 1) they can magnify the

See flow chart in Goldstone, Jack A. 2003. "The Comparative and Historical Study of Revolutions." In Revolutions: Theoretical, Comparative, and historical Studies. edited by Jack A. Goldstone. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, p.13.

Jay C Colburn II GOVT 731

3/2/2011

importance of countries experiencing revolutions; 2) they can upset existing alliance patterns; and 3) other countries will fear the export of revolution to their countries. In the vein of the fourth generation theories of revolution, this paper will investigate the recent revolutions that have taken place in the North Africa as well as the massive uprisings in a number of other Middle Eastern nations in 2011; it will pay particular attention to the international dimensions of their revolutionary processes, exploring the international effect on state, elite, and popular conditions in a revolutionary country as well as the revolutions impact abroad, in order to further understanding of revolutions in the 21st century. Before discussing the recent Middle East revolutions, it must be noted that these events are recent and continually unfolding, but this paper will focus on the events that have already transpired, the processes of the revolutions, and does not intend to make any prognostications about the outcomes or long-term effects of these events. The most notable feature of the 2011 Middle Eastern revolutionary movements have been the abrupt and massive nature of the demonstrations involved. While only two countries' authoritarian leaders have been overthrown (Tunisia's Ben Ali and Egypt's Mubarak), massive protests have taken place in Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, Jordan, and other countries. The scale of these protests was initially the most notable aspect of them, as large demonstrations of this magnitude are most often repressed by force by the existing regime. The international community is quick to condemn the use of violence against peaceful protesters, in these cases protesters calling for democratic reforms. Once it became clear that the demonstrators, first in Tunisia and then in Egypt, would not be satisfied until the dictatorial rulers stepped down from power, world powers such as the United States were put in a difficult situation. Because of the United States' geostrategic interests in the region, American presidents have a long history of supporting authoritarian leaders in the Middle

Jay C Colburn II GOVT 731

3/2/2011

East as a means of maintaining a relative level of stability in order to secure those interests. Because of this support, the US and other major Western powers were hesitant in supporting the removal of Ben Ali and Mubarak. Western powers also did not want to be seen as overly involved in these revolutionary processes because it could delegitimize the domestic grassroots nature of these movements; the demonstrators did not want to be seen as pawns of the US or not able to bring about significant political change themselves. The case of Libya is different from Egypt and Tunisa, which only experienced relatively low levels of violent repression compared to Muammar Qadhafi, who is accused of hiring mercenaries and using the air strikes against the Libyan demonstrators. The role of the international community in that specific uprising is still uncertain, although military options including setting up a no-fly zone over Libya are apparently being considered. These observations demonstrate the international effect on revolutionary movements, from international alliances with the existing state leaders to Western nations' struggles to maintain such ties or support policies that align with its national ideals of democracy, human and political rights, and the freedoms of speech and expression. As mentioned above, revolutions can also have crucial impacts on international relations. The overthrow of the 30 year Egyptian regime was of key political and economic importance, for peace in the region because of Israel's peace treaty with Israel and because of Egypt's control of the Suez Canal, through which many globally traded goods pass through every day. The

importance of political change Tunisia, however, does not have direct drastic global implications, but its publicity and perceived importance in international relations was most likely exaggerated because of the revolutionary events taking place there. Related to that is the fear of the spread of revolution. Justifiably so, other MENA leaders are frightened of similar uprisings

Jay C Colburn II GOVT 731

3/2/2011

taking place in their own countries.

Sets of preemptive concessions have been made by

President Saleh of Yemen, who has promised not to run for re-election in 2013, and King Abdullah II of Jordan, who recently dismissed the parliament, in the hope that they too will not be overtaken by the will of the people. The nature and unfolding of the revolutionary events in this region highlight some new and important international implications for revolutions. The use of communications

technology, specifically social media websites like Twitter and Facebook, played an integral role in the original planning of the protests which then spread like wildfire among the populations and across the region. With such internet capabilities, many sectors of society in countries around the world, particularly the educated youth in the Middle East, have been exposed to the opportunities and possibilities available around the world; authoritarian rulers no longer have the power to restrict what types of information their populations are exposed to. Also, acts of repression are much more easily recorded and distributed around the world, contributing to garnering widespread and international support for these revolutionary movements calling for democratic reforms. The timeline of these events have also been extraordinarily quick; where revolutions in the past have taken place over months if not years, the downfall of Mubarak in Egypt took a mere 18 days of demonstrations. This difference shows how combinations of factors, like increased communications capabilities mixed with heightened international attention, can lead to revolutionary processes evolving at different rates or in different ways than those of past centuries. It is difficult to propose any major theoretical contributions to the revolutionary literature based on the recent events in the Middle East. While the cases above do provide interesting examples of new phenomena in revolutionary processes, specifically with international and

Jay C Colburn II GOVT 731

3/2/2011

revolutionary relationships and the use of modern communications technology, they are limited. The fact that all of these recent revolutionary movements explored are in the strategic MENA region could have an effect on outcomes. It is once again important to note that these

revolutionary processes are still in the making; while Tunisia and Egypt have seen the overthrow of former authoritarian leaders, significant democratic reform is still yet to be seen, especially with the current military rule of Egypt. Future endeavors to expand on the international

dimensions of revolutions may be aided by studying international effects on revolution in terms of long-term and short-term effects, since international actions may have important outcomes months, years, or even decades later. Many works on revolutions have undoubtedly shown the impact international relations can have on revolutions, as well as the impact revolutions can have on international relations. This paper has looked at the particularities of the most recent revolutions and revolutionary movements that have taken place in early 2011 in the Middle East and North Africa and pointed out some possibilities for theoretical expansion as well as noted some of the shortfalls of assessing the relationship between international relations and revolutions.

Jay C Colburn II GOVT 731

3/2/2011

Bibliography
Goldstone, Jack A. 2003. "The Comparative and Historical Study of Revolutions." In Revolutions: Theoretical, Comparative, and historical Studies. edited by Jack A. Goldstone, 120. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Goodwin, Jeff. 2001. "Is the Age of Revolutions Over?" In Revolution: International Dimensions. edited by Mark N. Katz, 272-283. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press. Katz, Mark N. 2001. "The International Dimensions of Revolution: An Introduction." In Revolution: International Dimensions. edited by Mark N. Katz, 1-8. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press. Selbin, Eric. 2003. "Agency and Culture in Revolutions." In Revolutions: Theoretical, Comparative, and historical Studies. edited by Jack A. Goldstone, 76-84. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.