Leaders and Their Effect on Revolutions

     It seems that when a revolution becomes about a person, either glorifying a revolutionary leader or gaining revenge on an old one, the revolution becomes violent. It is interesting to note that all of the revolutions of 1989 were nonviolent, with the exception of Romania. In all of these Eastern European countries, revolt came from the people, and was led by the people. When the people rose together, as one, with a common purpose, there was nothing their governments could do to stop them. There were no central figures, like Robespierre or Khomeini, driving them. We don't remember the names of their Communist leaders, like we remember Stalin and King Louis XVI. In Romania, where we do remember the name of their leader Ceausescu and all the suffering he caused, the revolution was violent.  In Poland and Czechoslovakia there was Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel, but the revolutions they helped to lead never became about them or revenge. They remained about freedom and democracy for everyone.

     In countries that had central revolutionary leaders, such as Iran, France, and Russia, the revolution became not about freedom for the people but about power for that one person. People began to support and worship their leaders. The leaders could have asked the people to do anything and they would have complied. Every protest in Iran featured hundreds of portraits of Ayatollah Khomeini, whereas in the revolution in Egypt the Egyptian Flag was prominently displayed. When the people mobilized around supporting one person, there was usually violence. It is much easier to convince a group of people to all support freedom and equality than it is to convince them to support a certain person. In each of these countries there was also a leader remembered for the atrocities and oppression they had committed towards the people. These leaders became magnets for the people's hatred, and they wanted to destroy them violently.
     The people in Eastern Europe did not have a common enemy, a person to blame all their problems on and to center all their hate around. They only hated Communism, and perhaps Russia for imposing it on them. The Soviet Union had invaded their countries and forced communist governments on them, and continued enforcing them for decades. When the people revolted, it was simply to replace their government with one that wouldn't oppress them, there was no desire to make their current government suffer. They wanted only peaceful transition, there was no violent hatred and desire for revenge as there was in Romania, France, Iran, and Russia, where all of the leaders were executed by revolutionaries.

The Different Perspectives of Stalin's Leadership

In class, we have often discussed how although we in the United States condemn Stalin as a cruel  tyrant, there are those in Russia who praise him for his leadership. The current President of Russia,   Dmitry Medvedev, condemns Stalin's reign, while the current Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin praises Stalin. It is fascinating that a country who lived through the horror of this mans dictatorship can have split views on how to characterize it. Most people condemn the regime because of the level of violence and human death. Stalin's regime killed around 20 million people, through purges, famine, and forced labor camps. However, there are those who praise the regime because of the industrialization that took place, and because of the vast and great territory the Soviet Union controlled. Apparently there are those who felt Stalin brought Russian together as a nation, and they felt powerful. Putin gives credit to Stalin for creating a super power and defeating Hitler in World War II.  In any case, his decision to side with the allies was by no means a moral one. Stalin was an anti-Semite himself, and often denounced Jews as pro-Western and anti-communism. There are those who argue that siding against the Nazis is to his credit, but does it really justify the amount of deaths he caused?
     One explanation for this continued belief in the greatness of Stalin could be the amount of propaganda people lived with. It consumed their whole lives, and they were constantly being educated about the greatness of this man. The official views on him have fluctuated greatly, even to this day. The Khrushchev regime denounced Stalin, but 10 years later Brezhnev was praising him again. However, there are those who lived through the horror and have nothing but disgust for Stalin. How can their peers, who lived through the same terror, not share the same view?

The Fall of Communism

The rise of Communism in Russia was very similar to that of Communism in China. Both overthrew age old dynasties, and threw the country into civil war between those who opposed communism (nationalists, those who wanted democracy, monarchists) and communists. In each regime, propaganda and a personality cult revolving around one dictator were key tools. Mao and Stalin were god-like to their people. Each regime reinforced their power through violence, and was not afraid to purge and silence those who expressed views other than their own. Both dictators introduced policies that resulted in utter catastrophe, but were never met with any resistance. While both countries now hold capitalist economies, the government of China is still retains many of its communist values. Communism was completely overthrown in the Soviet Union, while it was never really taken down in China. The one difference between the regimes toward the end, was that the Soviet Union began to loosen its grip on the people, and introduced social and economic reforms such as perestroika and glasnost. While the Chinese have reformed economically, they still maintain stringent social policies. The Chinese experienced virtually no resistance, apart from the protest in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Where the Chinese able to maintain control because they refused to reform? Was the downfall of the Soviet Union it's attempts to open up the government? Why did the Chinese remain complacement, while all throughout communist europe regimes were overthrown? Ironically, the protest in Tiananmen Square helped to spark the revolutions of Eastern Europe, yet did little to help those in China.

The Effectiveness of Satyagraha

Satyagraha was the method created and used by Mahatma Gandhi to win independence for India in the 1900s. Satyagraha is defined as "soul force" or "truth force". Our Revolutions class defined it as "a form of nonviolent resistance in order to resist injustice and pursue truth". Gandhi developed satyagraha when he was living in South Africa and first beginning his career. He believed that everyone comes to different conclusions about truth, and that no human being can ever be sure that they are right. Gandhi was the first leader to show the world that you can fight and win using nonviolent methods. While there were outbursts of violence during the transition, a significant amount was prevented. However, satyagraha would probably not work everywhere or during certain time periods. It was effective in India because the British were known for their principled government based on equality and human rights. Once the world saw that the armed forces were the basis of their government in India, they looked hypocritical and it challenged their authority. It exposed them, and they chose to stick with their principles. In other countries, not claiming to be based on democracy and human rights, it seems that while satyagraha would not be ineffective, there would be so much violence and so great a death toll that it would not be worth it. For example, the use of satyagraha in Libya today seems as if it would be futile. The current dictator, Moammar Gadhafi, has no qualms about massacring his own people. Generally, satyagraha has an even greater effect because the army eventually tends to turn on their government, rather than shoot their countrymen. In Libya, Gadhafi has hired missionaries from the south of Africa with no connections to the country. They are payed to fight and kill the people of Libya, and it is unlikely they will ever turn on Gadhafi. While using satyagraha might attract the attention of the international community, peaceful appeals  to Gadhafi from other goverments don't seem like they would have much affect. Only the threat of war seems as if it would back him down, and that would completely defeat the purpose of the satyagraha. While nonviolent resistance is a wonderful idea, and can be effective, it cannot be applied everywhere. Gandhi believed himself to be a failure when he died, as the partitioning of India resulted in great violence. In reality, there was no way for him to fail. He stuck to his principles and showed the world what they had never seen before. He has influenced so many others after him, such as Martin Luther King Jr. His method of satyagraha is the first to take individual virtues and life lessons and apply them to a national scale. What is most amazing is that he succeeded.

The Problem of Egypt

The U.S. Department of State currently finds itself in a complex predicament due to the revolution in Egypt. The United States has been allied with Hosni Mubarak for the past 30 years. The US has since given over $26.8 billion in aid to Egypt. Our government therefore has extreme influence in Egypt, yet rarely did they encourage true democracy. In 2005, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave a speech encouraging free elections. Slight encouragement is the extent of the U.S.'s work to promote Egyptian democracy. The U.S. often called for the freedom of political prisoners and other dissidents, but little more was done in the name of free speech. Now that the Egyptian people are revolting against their oppressive government, the U.S. is faced with a dilemma. Should they support this revolution with its ideals of liberty and freedom, or continue to side with their ally of 30 years? Either way, the government looks slightly hypocritical. It seems the US supported Mubarak because he believed in weakening Islam. He is our only ally in the Middle East, and it seems as if our country supported his oppression of his people out of concern for our own domestic safety. Our government overlooked its principles and values and took the easy way out, choosing to support a regime that was inherently unstable due to its military nature. As Michael Gerson of the Washington Post said,"again, we are seeing that it is neither principled nor prudent for America to base its strategies in the Middle East on the denial of rights we value".
Now that Mubarak's regime is on the brink of collapse, America is worried the government will be taken over by Islamic radicals, which is the very problem they hoped to avoid in the first place. Our government has been left with little choice but to again call for legitimate free elections. If the government had not forsaken its principles and helped allow freedom of speech and expression, perhaps radicalism would not have taken root. The Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, a non-violent Muslim organization, was banned in 1954 and has been illegal ever since. Mubarak has supported the ban since he came to power in 1981. The Brotherhood openly repudiated terrorism and the 9/11 attacks, however they have been banned and repressed again and again. If anything, this cycle of oppression would promote violence. The U.S. has failed to recognize that everyone is entitled to free speech and liberty, those rights we hold so dear, regardless of whether we agree with their viewpoints or not. Besides moral obligations, it was in the United States' own interests to keep this group and the people of Egypt, not their leader, happy.

The Ludicrous Position of Samuel Smiles in his book Self-Help.

The argument Samuel Smiles makes in his book, Self-Help, is one that is still not entirely true today, but was blatantly incorrect during his time period. Smiles blames the poor for their own poverty, and considers all societal problems to stem from "individual idleness, selfishness, and vice" (86). Particularly during this time in history, the classes in society were set and relatively immovable. The nobility had oppressed the lower classes for centuries and exploited them for their own profit. Moving from poverty to middle class was incredible, and moving from poverty to nobility was impossible. The poor were the most hard-working class of the time. They got up 6 days a week and worked anywhere from 11-16 hours a day. They were by no means lazy; they simply lacked the means to change their lives. It was necessary to work constantly simply to survive, leaving them no time to think of becoming truly successful. Blaming the nobility for their suffering may not change anything, but it was rightfully the nobles who should have been blamed. Even though the poor practically fueled society with their labor, they were payed next to nothing. To change one's life, one had to have money. The only way to have made more money would have been to be educated so as to secure a better job. However, since the children of impoverished adults began work sometimes as young as 8 or 9, education was not an option. For many children, school was simply not offered. In this way, poverty created a cycle that was almost impossible to escape. Even today in America with our mobile social classes, once a person has entered into poverty it is very hard to get out. The poor today are somewhat more to blame for their own situation, as they can move classes very easily and their are many opportunities for those who work hard, but it is still easier said than done.

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

It might be said that although France perverted the ideals of their revolution during the Reign of Terror, they held true to them in one area the American's did not: slavery. However, their abolition of slavery was more of a forced political move than a defense of principles. Similarly to the American Revolution, slaves and "free coloreds" found that the ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity applied to them as well. They too were willing to fight for them, and overall were more successful. However, the white elite and political authority on Saint-Domingue did not feel the same way. They were
outraged when the National Assembly granted political rights to all free people of color born to parents with some property. The governor even refused to enact the law. As war with Europe approached, on April 4, 1792 the National Assembly enfranchised all free "people of color", not including slaves. This was a tactic to win their loyalty so that they could crush the slave rebellion and stabilize the colony, as they had a larger war to worry about. Only when they were desperate for troops did they ratify the abolition of slavery. In reality, the French did not better the Americans in their support for their ideals. The French simply had more to gain politically and economically by freeing their slaves.

Picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Delisle_-_Carte_de_l%27Isle_de_Saint_Domingue.png