Revolutionary Leadership in Russian Revolution and the Arab Spring - Essay Example

Throughout the history, rapid revolutionary events had often changed to the core the political systems of seemingly stable countries. Among them, there are some prominent examples (like French Revolution in 1789), which had a direct influence on the future path of the country’s development. In this context, revolutionary events in Russia in 1917 and recent events of the Arab Spring started in 2010 either had already led or are potentially leading to the same dramatic consequences. Although, the diversities of political regimes, peculiarities of social structures, and the driving forces for change are so striking that it is hard to impose any clear classification between different revolutions in all the varieties of times and epochs. Nevertheless, in certain aspects the possibility for compare and contrast analysis emerges. In particular, the given essay determines the general situation and leadership in Russia on the one hand and in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya on another hand. In this context, the idea of complexity in these two phenomena provides an opportunity to define the key similarities and differences between these two revolutionary processes. As for the common traits, the similar starting conditions of social despair and economic stagnation are evident; moreover, military support and social fragmentation in Egypt and radical claim in Libya correspond with Russian case. Although, there are certain differences between the Arab Spring and Russian Revolution in terms of ideology, relying on the leadership, and the consequences of the transformation. As a result, it is evident that these two instances as the general phenomena are incomparable. To start with, the general complexity of the given cases is the reason of drawing on their similarities and differences. In fact, it is not right to comprehend all the three revolutions in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia as a general phenomenon. Moreover, it is hard to comprehend an overall process of Russian revolution in a sketch too. Thus, it is necessary to determine the key leadership and the starting conditions of these four countries in order to provide any comparison between them. On the one hand, Anderson (2011) believes that Arab countries are different among all in terms of their economic ground and social fabric. In other words, by referring to the Arab Spring countries we consider three different in their internal environment states (Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya). For instance, the main forces for change in Tunisia were the local trade union (UGTT), lawyers, and journalists; but in Egypt, the revolution was headed by linked to political opposition the April 6 Movement (Joffe, 2011, p. 521). Hence, the leadership of the Arab Spring is not the same not only in terms of concrete personalities but also in the social background of these forces. Furthermore, the key problems that encouraged these countries to change are also not the same. In the days prevailing the revolution, Tunisia was a tourist-oriented and powerful in terms of social unions and communities country (Anderson, 2011, E2). In fact, the revolution in this country emerged as a response to the way “the Ben Ali family plundered the economy and repressed all autonomous attempts at political expressions” (Joffe, 2011, p. 514). Unlike Tunisian case, in Egypt army widely supported local revolution (Anderson, 2011, E3). As for Libya, its internal situation is “both simpler and more vexing” (Anderson, 2011, E4), since it has experienced the less democratized political regime among the other countries. Thus, viewing these three countries separately is a comprehensive method for analysis. On another hand, the complex situation within the Middle East and North Africa resonates with the plenty of forces and ideologies in times of Russian revolution. First of all, Leon Trotsky (1930) highly estimates personal traits and courage of Vladimir Lenin as the main and the only true leader of Russian events in 1917 in the circumstances of struggling ideologies and political forces. In this context, Leon Trotsky (1930) highly evaluates Lenin’s comeback from abroad for the beginning of Russian revolution in general and the empowerment of Bolshevik Party in particular. In other words, it is evident that Russian revolution is charismatic and the role of immigrant opposition is highly important for it. In addition, the peculiarities of Russian society demonstrated the huge part of peasantry and working class, which were suffering from the war burden (Clements, 1982; Filzpatrick, 2008). Because of this, the revolution revealed numerous interests and conflicts, which led to the long-term conflict before the Soviet rule was finally established. Therefore, events of Russian Revolution are the result of Lenin’s victory in a chaotic struggle for determination of the Russia’s political future. In the context of similarities between the analyzed revolutions, hard starting conditions of social crisis and economic stagnation are evident. In this context, both imperial Russia and Muslim countries wanted to change their states to the core. For instance, people in Egypt were furious because of Mubarak’s indifference to country’s social problems concerning unemployment and poverty (Anderson, 2011, E3). Actually, people in Tunisia and Libya suffered from the regimes of Ben Ali and Qadhafi in the same manner. Russia was also doing through “a time of paradox, in which the lavish promises of the new government were accompanied by enormous deprivation and frightening social disintegration” (Clements, 1982, p. 215). Moreover, Arab countries and Russia in a transition period were suffering from economic instability. Like they “certainly formed part of the background” (Joffe, 2011, p. 509) in Arab countries. Russia in the middle of 1910s suffered from the damage of World War I and imperial rule of tsar Nikolay II (Trotsky, p. 273) in the circumstances of rapid industrialization (Filzpatrick, 2008, p. 19). In this context, the level of popular discontent and its economic fluctuations had grown in all the analyzed regions and enabled the very opportunity of revolution to start. By comparing Russian revolution to Egypt, the military importance and social disintegration strikes the eye. While Tunisia represented the higher level of cooperation between state and liberal opposition, liberal forces in Egypt realized that they are desperate in front of Muslim Brotherhood (MB) without military support (Stepan and Linz, 2013, p. 21). In the given circumstances, civil society in Egypt did not enjoy such a high level of independence. In Joffe’s (2011) opinion, Mubarak agreed on existence of political pluralism and did not distract media from working, but forced the society itself to be fragmented and corrupted (p. 513). Like Egyptians, Russian people needed strong leaders in the times of total despair and chaos. In Russian traditional peasant society Clements, 1982; Filzpatrick, 2008, p. 17), the conditions of World War I and growing competition between different forces made it necessary for Lenin and Bolsheviks to encourage military forces to join their ideology (Filzpatrick, 2008). Thus, the role of military was important for both Egypt and Russia for the sake of social integration. In comparison to Libya, the radicalization of revolution is similar to Russia. Among three Arab countries, Stepan and Linz (2013) stress on the fact that Qadhafi’s regime in Libya was “the most sultanistic” (p. 27) among them. Like his colleagues, Joffe (2011) doubts the ability of Libyan society to fight for their rights in the same manner as Tunisians and Egyptians did (p. 508). Correspondingly, Russia’s case has also started in authoritarian regime, and Russian leaders were seeking for the same radical change. As they claimed, “We don’t need any parliamentary republic. We don’t need any bourgeois democracy. We don’t need any government except the Soviet of workers’, soldiers’, and farmhands; deputies!” (Trotsky, 1930, p. 274). In other words, the kind of rule Russia and Libya had experienced is closer to authoritarian and sultanistic pattern than to previously authoritative-democratic Tunisia and Egypt. Notwithstanding this, Russian Revolution and the Arab Spring have significant differences in some principle positions. Among them, ideological background for change is illustrative. On the one hand, the Arab Spring was seeking for democratic transition. Although, for both imperial Russia and contemporary Islamic countries the very ability to provide democracy emerged. In the case of Arab Spring, the examples of Indonesia, India, and Senegal provided by Stepan and Linz (2013) demonstrate that Islam and democracy can exist in one state. As for Russia, in the very beginning it sincerely proclaimed “democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry” (Trotsky, p. 271). Nevertheless, the development of these revolutions revealed different intentions for the change in terms of their ideological ambiguity, since Russia ended with the appearance of socialist-communist Soviet Union. Furthermore, the role of personality in these two cases is different. In fact, in the analysis of the Arab Spring events, no separate individual among opposition appears in the literature (Anderson, 2011; Joffe, 2011; Stepan and Linz, 2013). From a different perspective, Joffe (2011) argues that economic reasons were not the key triggers for the events of the Arab Spring in contrast to the political difficulties for civilians, which were caused by local governments. In author’s words, “their refusal to tolerate active popular political participation in the process of governance would act as a driver for the crises they faced, once the appropriate catalyst could be found” (Joffe, 2011, p. 508). On the contrary, Russian leaders were relying on Lenin as the personalized driver for change (Trotsky, 1930). In fact, Russian leaders strongly relied on their leadership, since “a revolutionary conception without revolutionary will is like a watch with a broken string” (Trotsky, p. 272). In other words, the social background had a secondary role in front of primary necessity of opposition empowerment in Russian revolutionary process. Therefore, completely different accents appear in the pace of two analyzed revolutions. Finally, it is evident that revolutionary events led to completely different consequences for the Arab Spring countries separately and in contrast to revolutionary Russia. In the aftermath of Egyptian revolution, the new Constitution guaranteed no regional independence and empowered military officers (Stepan and Linz, 2011, p. 22). On the contrary, Tunisian population from the very beginning claimed on the constitutional change for their country as the key requirement (Joffe, 2011, p. 518). As for Libya, the kind of strict rule established in this country did not allow to analyze the events through constitutional transformation. Furthermore, Soviet turn of Russian Revolution is not likely to emerge in contemporary times. In general, it is common to refer to Fukuyama’s prediction on the end of ideologies in the definition we had given to them (Joffe, 2011, p. 511). Nevertheless, it is evident that for the Muslim world, “political extrapolations of Islamic doctrine” (Joffe, 2011, p. 516) serves as a sustainable ideology in still conservative society. In short, even the language and the key ideas are different for the Arab Spring and Russian Revolution. In order to sum up, it is evident that the Arab Spring and Russian Revolution by being two processes from different epochs and political claims are hardly comparable as general phenomena. On the one hand, local revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya had completely unlike social base for the revolution, and paid not equal attention to the different aspects of social life. On another hand, Russian Revolution is a complex process, and Bolsheviks’ victory is a single event among the plenty of other competitions and struggles. Although, by taking separately, these revolutions share some common traits. In a generalized manner, all four countries demonstrated certain level of social despair and economic change (in terms of either industrialization or stagnation). In addition, 1917 Russia is similar to contemporary Egypt in military support for revolution and overall social fragmentation and to contemporary Libya in authoritarian starting political conditions. Nevertheless, the more significant differences emerge in the core, development, and the aftermath of these phenomena. On the one hand, the Arab Spring revolutions were manifestations of democratic state building, based on the dispersed leadership and empowered by rather Islam doctrine than constitutional turn. On another hand, charismatic Russian Revolution was socialist movement and led to the country’s peaceful status and strikingly different internal social and political structure. Hence, the differences between the Arab Spring countries and 1917 revolutionary Russia are more notional than slight similarities in certain aspects of their development. References: Anderson, L., 2011. Demystifying the Arab Spring [pdf]. Foreign Affairs, 90(3), pp. E1-E5. Available at: < http://mist914.wikispaces.com/file/view/The+New+Arab+Revolt.pdf> [Accessed 17 March 2015]. Clements, B., 1982. Working-Class and Peasant Women in the Russian Revolution, 1917-1923. Signs, 8(2), pp. 215-235. Filzpatrick, S., 2008. The Russian Revolution. Third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Joffe, G., 2011. The Arab Spring in North Africa: Origins and Prospects. The Journal of North African Studies, 16(4), pp. 507-532. Stepan, A. and Linz, J., 2013. Democratization Theory and the Arab Spring. Journal of Democracy, 24(2), pp. 15-30. Trotsky, L., 1930. Chapter XV: Lenin and the Bolsheviks. In: L. Trotsky, 1930. The History of the Russian Revolution. Available at: [Accessed 22 March 2015]. Read More