The Causes, Characteristics, and Aims of Revolutions

Introduction

Throughout the history of human society and governance, various forms of protestations by the governed have characterized disagreements between the governor and the governed. These differences between the rulers and their subjects usually lead to a need for negotiations, and subsequent governance changes in order that the society might continue to exist peacefully.

However, when the rulers in such a situation ignore the usually genuine demands of their subjects, the outcome is usually a form of protest and demonstration by the governed in order to express their views more powerfully. Such protests take various forms, and the outcome may be concessions that assuage the demands of the protesting governed or increased control and continued recalcitrance by the rulers and governors concerned. Revolutions are borne out of such stalemates.

Dictatorship/autocracy, poverty/inequality, and a desire for personal and communal liberty have characterized the demands of most revolutionary quests throughout history, and this commonality of demands can be seen in the demands of revolutionary masses of the 17th Century Glorious Revolution, as well as, the present day Arab Spring revolutions.

In this paper, a historical analysis of crucial revolutions in different countries and eras – beginning with the Glorious Revolution in England and ending with the Arab Spring revolutions of recent days – will be undertaken. The causes, characteristics, and outcomes of these revolutions will be analyzed. The commonality of the revolutions and their importance in a socio-historical context will also be provided in the conclusion.

The Glorious Revolution of 1688

The Glorious Revolution in England, in 1688, toppled the then English King James II. King James II’s moderate religious views, and the general excesses of the English Monarchy, stoked the fires of the revolution.

The Glorious Revolution in England is significant because many of its sociopolitical and religious outcomes extend to contemporary times (Miller 58). Although the King’s religion of Catholicism was a crucial factor for parliamentarians’ opposition to his reign, a general dissatisfaction with the King’s aristocratic reign and accompanying monarchical powers attracted opposition.

As a Roman Catholic, William II began a series of maneuvers that were meant to grant Roman Catholics in England more political voice, despite the majority of citizens in England being protestant. The English King also had a strained relationship with Parliament, and he frequently used his powers to usurp the role and functions of the legislature. Naturally, these actions earned him few friends amongst the English ruling class and citizens.

Matters became intolerable when James II’s wife gave birth to a son, who as the heir, apparently meant that Catholicism in the monarchy would continue through him, and more importantly, the reign of unchecked aristocratic powers. English legislators thus began fomenting a rebellion, and after striking a deal with the Dutch King (William of Orange), the latter attacked England with a view to toppling King James II.

In England, the invasion was successful in short order. Widespread dissatisfaction with the policies and actions of the King ensured that the masses offered little support to the King and thus did not fight him. King William of Orange and his wife Mary were subsequently enthroned as joint monarchs over England, Scotland, and Ireland.

The Outcomes of the Glorious Revolution

One of the leading and most serious consequences of the Glorious Revolution was the vindication of parliamentary democracy over monarchical rule in England. Because King James II had, many times, acted unilaterally and rendered parliament irrelevant, the leaders in England were keen to ensure a repeat of such actions never occurred. Thus, the role of parliament as a law making body was established, with the King having no power to inviolate laws enacted by parliament, as James II was wont to do.

Catholicism as a religion was also banned from the Monarchy, with the monarchs now forbidden from marrying Roman Catholics too. More importantly, the Glorious Revolution led to the drafting of the Bill of Rights, a blue print for many subsequent democracies and republics keen on ensuring that the citizens enjoyed a broad-based number of inalienable rights enshrined in law.

The American Revolution (1776-1783)

The American Revolution was the war waged by the then thirteen colonies of America against the British Empire with the aim of severing links with Britain. The colonies desired to chart their on social, political, and economic paths outside of the direct influence, ruler ship, and domination of Britain. The American Revolution/war of independence from 1776-1783 was caused by various socio-economic and political factors.

Chiefly, the leaders and masses in the colonies were opposed to the reign of Britain over them, and desired to establish a union of independent states connected at a federal level each with its own government (Creviston 465). The economic causes of the American Revolution were many and varied. A series of unpopular taxes imposed by Britain fuelled the Revolution. The Townshend Act, which placed taxes on a number of essential goods like paper and tea, was particularly unpopular, leading the colonists to boycott British goods.

The Stamp Act, which required many commodities to be certified with a stamp in the colonies, with the amount for the Stamp being the tax, was also hugely unpopular and fanned anti-British sentiments in the colonies. The taxes levied went directly to Britain hence had no economic benefit for the colonies, yet they were forced to pay them. The British also enacted laws forbidding the colonists from trading with other nations besides Britain, which was economically disadvantageous to the colonists.

One of the foremost political reasons that led to the American Revolution was the fact that, the American colonists were subjected to the authority of the British laws, yet they had no representation in the British parliament. Decisions directly affecting the political and economic structure of colonial America were being made in Britain, thousands of miles away from the playground.

This prompted the then thirteen states to unite and declare independence from the British Empire in 1776, which they accused of several acts of injustice, and these acts in their view had rendered Britain an illegitimate government, as far as the affairs of the colonies were concerned.

In a similar fashion to the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution was carried out via military wars and actions. The colonists engaged the British army at various points/locations in the American continent, and after a protracted 7-year Revolutionary War, the British granted independence to the United States.

Outcomes of the American Revolutionary War

Economic and political independence from Britain was the ultimate aim of the American Revolution, and these aims were achieved when the British granted the colonies independence. More importantly, the Revolution led to the establishment of the United States of America, a nation later to become a world power, and leader in democratic ideals throughout the globe.

The ideals of the revolutionary fighters, as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, have served to inspire many other independence seeking groups and fighters throughout history.

The French Revolution (1789-1799)

The French Revolution came soon after the end of the American Revolution, and paragons and accomplishments of the American Revolution served as inspiration for the French masses when they began their own revolution. Widespread poverty, high-handed aristocratic decrees by an Absolute Monarchy, profligate spending by the monarchy-leaning ruling class all contributed to the French Revolution (Hunt 7).

As indicated earlier, inspiration also came from the successful American Revolution, where the contents of the Declaration of Independence formed indispensable reference for the French revolutionaries. King Louis XVI’s reign had been widely unpopular, and the perceived excesses of his wife Marie Antoinette, in the face a bankrupt economy, served to turn the anger of the starving masses towards the ruling class.

The French Revolution was carried out by the masses in the cities and peasant in the rural areas, mostly led by left wing liberals who loathed aristocracy and embraced the ideals of democracy (Griffith). The masses attacked various government and monarchical establishments, most times massacring the guards and tenants they found in these buildings (Orczy 1).

A few years into the revolution, the Jacobins (the de facto leaders of the revolution) declared a France a republic. King Louis XVI was guillotined in January 1793, while his wife, Queen Marie Antoinette, was similarly executed in October of the same year. Reign of terror followed, where the zeal to get rid of the traces of French aristocratic and Monarchical past led to the execution by the guillotine of most members of France’s aristocracy class and the monarchy, together with their perceived supporters.

Outcomes of the French Revolution

The French revolution led to the abolition (although it was later briefly re-established) of the Monarchy as the supreme ruling power in France (Thomas). The Church, with Catholicism as a veritable state religion, had a limited state role after the revolution. The declaration of the rights of French citizens in the document known as The Declaration of The Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which served as a liberty guide for the masses engaged in the revolution, enshrined rights to the masses that they were previously denied.

The French established a republican style of governance, which under Napoleon Bonaparte become highly militaristic. Given that the church and the ruling class in pre-revolution France owned the largest share of land, after the Revolution, French citizens were able to exercise more property and land ownership rights after the limiting of the powers of these two entities (Betros 17).

The Russian Revolution (1917)

The Bolsheviks, who led the masses in violent demonstrations against the rule of Tsar Nicholas II, instigated the Russian Revolution. Under Tsarist autocracy for centuries, the Russian masses had grown weary of the excesses of Tsarist rule.

When the First World War began, the economic repercussions experienced of the war by the masses created a sense of dissatisfaction in Tsar Nicholas II’s rule. The war meant that the masses had to receive rationed quantities and had to forgo the luxury of utilities available during peacetime. While the masses suffered, the ruling autocratic class continued to live a luxuriously, and the dissent against these inequalities culminated in a revolution that began in March (Ross 22).

The transitional leadership similarly failed to live up to the expectations of the masses; consequently, it was subsequently toppled by communist Bolsheviks in November of the same year. Violent demonstrations and battles characterized the Russian revolution, and after assuming the reigns of leadership under Lenin, the Bolsheviks had to fight several wars in order to maintain their hold on power in Russia.

Outcomes of the Russian Revolution

The Bolsheviks ended centuries of Tsarist rule and established Communism in Russia. Tsar Nicholas and his family were subsequently executed in the aftermath of the revolution, symbolizing a bloody end to autocratic rule in Russia.

The Russian revolution also led to the establishment of the Soviet Union whose communist agenda throughout the world created a new centre of power in Europe in the struggle for worldwide economic, social, and political influence against the west, especially the USA (Kowalski 32). Under Stalin, the Soviet Union experienced rapid industrialization, although such economic advancements were stained by Stalin’s dictatorial stance, where millions of those opposed to his policies were summarily executed or exiled.

The Arab/Middle East Spring Revolutions

The revolutions in many Arab countries, which began in December 2010 and are still currently ongoing in some Arab nations, were triggered by several factors. It is worth noting that most Arab state of present day are ruled by Kings, dictatorial leaders or leaders who have consolidated political power after having ruled for comparatively long periods (Anderson 5).

The common causes of the revolutions are dictatorship by respective regimes/leaders, widespread unemployment, economic inequality, corruption, political intolerance and a general opposition to existing governing structures. The revolutions involve demonstrations and protestations of varying degrees.

In Libya, the revolution became a full-blown Civil war where the revolutionary fighters were aided in their quest by a coalition of Western powers under the aegis of the UN. In Egypt and Tunisia, violent demonstrations that paralyzed the operations of government characterized protests. In Syria, such demonstrations involving tens of thousands of citizens have led to the deaths of a high number of civilians and law enforcement agents, but the President is yet to cede power.

In Bahrain, similar protests and demonstrations have led to a few economic concessions by King Hamad, but protests demanding the removal from power of the monarchy are still ongoing. Similar stalemates are found in Jordan, Yemen, and Syria where the political and economic concessions by the rulers have not assuaged the anger and demands of the protesters.

Outcomes of the Arab/Middle East Spring Revolutions

The capitulation of the long-serving regimes of both Presidents Ben Ali of Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak by February 2011 under the wave of protests sent a strong message across the Arab world. For citizens planning or inspired by such demonstrations, the resignations of both long serving leaders was hugely inspiring.

For leaders in other Arab countries, the defeat of these leaders due to the wave of protests meant that they had to soothe the citizens of their own countries or face a similar fate (Marquand 9). By April 2011, protests had begun in the following countries: Libya, Syria, Yemen, Algeria, Bahrain, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon.

Therefore, the demonstrations led to socio-political and economic changes in many of these Arab countries. Besides Tunisia and Egypt, President Muammar Gaddafi was deposed in August when he fled the capital Tripoli. On October 20 2011, the revolutionary forces captured and killed Colonel Gaddafi in the outskirts of the Town of Sirte, signaling the end of his 42-year-old rule. Political concessions aimed at saving some Arab rulers similar (and perhaps less violent) fates occurred in various countries (Macfarquhar 4).

Constitutional changes in Morocco limited the powers of the King. In Sudan, President Bashir promised not to seek re-election for a third term. Prime Minister Maliki in Iraq also made a similar promise of stepping down at the end of his current term, while provincial governors resigned to allow for reforms. In Bahrain, King Hamad began negotiations intended to draw minority Shias into power positions and opportunities within government.

King Hamad also ordered the release of political prisoners. In Oman, Sultan Qaboos granted more law making powers to the legislature. In Algeria, a 19-year state of emergency was lifted, while MPs from the ruling party in Yemen all resigned to allow for political reforms.

Economically, various governments acceded to the demands of protesters, especially concerning wage increases and reduction of inequalities (Hitchens 29). In Lebanon, general wages were increased by 40%, while, in Saudi Arabia, the King announced plans to increase the wages of Saudi nationals. Sultan Qaboos announced similar measures in Oman.

From the Glorious Revolutions to the Arab Spring Revolutions: Dictatorship, Economic Inequality/Poverty, and Personal Freedom as Common causes of Revolutions

Dictatorial/Autocratic Regimes as Harbingers of Revolutions

The common factor with the leaders and regimes in all the countries that have experienced revolutions discussed above is their tendency to ignore the political plight of the masses. King James II and King George of England, during the Glorious and American Revolutions respectively, repeatedly enacted laws that emasculated and muzzled the political voice of the masses under their rule.

King Louis XVI of France during the French Revolution and Tsar Nicholas II during the Bolshevik Revolution both exercised absolute power over their subjects. Similarly, all leaders in countries that experienced the Arab revolutions are guilty of concentrating political power amongst themselves, and their ardent supporters.

Repeated demands for inclusive political reforms by the revolutionary masses were repeatedly ignored in all the revolutions above, which led to revolutionary acts that many times led to the deposition and death of the leaders.

Economic Inequality/Poverty

Marie Antoinette is famously said to have advised revolutionary masses protesting about the unavailability of bread to try cake instead. Such a discord and discrepancy between the lifestyles of the ruling monarchy and their subjects was a chief agent in stirring revolutionary demonstrations and wars.

Widespread poverty and economic inequalities in pre-revolution France, Russia and many of the Arab nations mentioned earlier led many citizens to the streets in desperate final attempts of overthrowing their rulers in order to attempt different economic policies that may effect change and herald better tidings for them.

Personal Freedom and Rights of Citizens

Dictatorial regimes, widespread poverty, and economic inequality, naturally rob the citizens a sense of personal and communal freedom to act according to their will. The American Declaration of Independence contained the famous phrase dictating a citizen’s right to the pursuit of happiness.

The French similarly espoused a citizen’s right to liberty and freedom during and after the revolution. The Arab spring has been characterized by online activism that offered a platform for exchange of ideas amongst citizens never before experienced in restrictive Arab countries. Citizens go to extraordinary lengths to gain personal and social freedom, including undertaking revolutions.

Conclusion

In a period spanning over four centuries since the Glorious Revolution in England to the present day Arab spring Revolutions, the demands of the revolutionary masses remain spectacularly similar. The masses fight against the political repression of autocratic and dictatorial rulers, poverty, and inequality, which go unchecked by these rulers, and against a tendency to eliminate their individual inalienable rights of life and liberty (Claeys 303).

The revolutions provide a study on how to avoid such confrontations and protests in present day nations. Despite the ultimate noble aims of revolutions, the accompanying loss of lives, property, and stability in nations that undergo revolutions is sometimes impossible to recoup (Sabatini 2). Therefore, democracies and republics provide suitable forms of governance for pre-empting revolutions.

Works Cited

Anderson, Lisa. “Demystifying theArab Spring.” Foreign Affairs90.3 (2011): 2-6. Print.

Betros, Gemma. “The French Revolution and The Catholic Church.” History Review68.4 (2010): 16-21. Print.

Claeys, Gregory. Citizens andSaints: Politics andAnti-Politics in Early British Socialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Print.

Creviston, Peter.”No King Unless It Be AConstitutional King: Rethinking The Place Of The Quebec Act In The Coming Of The American Revolution.”Historian73.3 (2011): 463-479. Print.

Griffith, David, dir. Orphans OftheStorm. United Artists, 1921. Film.

Hitchens, Peter. “The Real Cost OftheArab Spring.” Mail onSunday08 May 2011: 29.

Hunt, Lynn. “The Problem ofPolitics in The French Revolution.” Chinese Studies inHistory43.3 (2010): 6-16.Print.

Kowalski, Ronald. The Russian Revolution: 1917-1921New York: Routledge, 1997. Print.

Macfarquhar, Neil. “The Arab Spring Finds Itself Upstaged by A New Season.” New York Times23 Sept. 2011: 4.Print.

Marquand, Rose. “Arab Women: This Time, the Revolution Won’t Leave Us Behind.”Christian Science Monitor12.1(2011): 9-15. Print.

Miller, John. The Glorious Revolution. London: Longman, 1997. Print.

Orczy, Baroness. The Scarlet Pimpernel. New York: Penguin Books, 1905. Print.

Ross, Stewart. The Russian Revolution London: Evan Brothers, 2002. Print.

Sabatini, Raphael. Captain Blood. Stilwell, Kansas: Digireads, 1922. Print.

Thomas, Ralph, Dir. A Tale ofTwo Cities. Rank Film Distributors, 1958. Film.

Libyan Revolution: Ending Gaddafi’s Regime

The Libyan revolution began in February 2011 and ended in October 2011, lasting for 8 months and 6 days (Manhire 44). The revolution was a clash between Muamar Gadaffi’s forces and forces that wanted to overthrow his government. It was one of the many revolutions in the Middle East, which came to be included in the so-called Arab spring.

The revolution started at Benghazi with protesters clashing with government forces loyal to Gaddafi (Manhire 45). Afterwards, the protests culminated into a nationwide rebellion that led to the formation of the National Transitional Council, a group that constituted forces opposed to Gadaffi’s rule.

The main things that caused the Libyan revolution include violation of human rights, poor leadership and widespread corruption and poor development (Manhire 48). Since Gadaffi became the defacto leader of Libya in 1969, Libyans never enjoyed justice and their rights were violated every day.

For many years, Gadaffi’s poor leadership caused oppression and poverty in the lives of many Libyans (Manhire 49). His regime was highly corrupt, and he used public funds and resources to enrich himself. The revolution started when people became fed up and decided to liberate themselves from the tyrannical regime.

Religion, politics, nationalism and economics played a critical role in the revolution. The main objective of the revolution was to save Libya from corruption and an oppressive regime. This can be attributed to politics and the people’s nationalism. Forces that sought to oust Gadaffi held liberal political views and wanted to liberate Libya from economic exploitation and corruption (Manhire 50).

Religion was also a critical factor in the revolution. Religion was in support of the revolution because under Gadaffi’s rule, religion was under his control and had no impact in his government. In addition, there were debates regarding the role of Islam religion in the government of Libya, debates which Gadaffi ignored and trampled down.

The revolution was mainly a clash between forces loyal to Gadaffi and forces that were against his rule and that sought to oust him from power (Manhire 54). In addition, it involved civilians who were divided into two groups: those who supported Gadaffi and those who did not support him. The forces opposed to Gadaffi’s rule formed a temporary governing body that they named the National Transitional Council.

The council was determined to oust Gadaffi from power and on February 2011, decided to freeze his assets and the assets of his close aids. In addition, they referred the case to the International Criminal Court for legal intervention. Gadaffi’s forces then declared a ceasefire but failed to honor their word. Rebel groups declined the government’s call to a ceasefire because it did not include the removal of Gadaffi from power.

The social media played a significant role in the Libyan revolution. For example, people used the social media to get updates on the revolution. These updates included where protests were taking place, police activity and activities by the rebel groups. In addition, it aided in informing the world about the severity of the revolution (Manhire 59). It helped summon help from other countries.

The Libyan revolution led to the ousting of Gadaffi’s government. The National Interim Council assumed temporary control of Libya, Muamar Gadaffi was killed and violence between opposing forces heightened.

Many countries recognized the National Interim Council as the governing body and forces opposed to Gadaffi’s rule took control of many Libyan cities. As a result, many military members defected to the opposing side and many government officials resigned from their positions (Manhire 61). The clashes between pro-Gadaffi and anti-Gadaffi forces led to the death of many civilians.

The revolution was effective in ending the oppressive and corrupt regime of Gadaffi. However, it involved violence that led to many deaths and murders. Innocent people were killed and many were displaced.

Works Cited

Manhire, Toby. The Arab Spring: Rebellion, Revolution and a New World Order. New York: Random House, 2012. Print.

America and Iran Relation After 1979 Revolution

Since 1979 after the Iran revolution America and Iran has been having diplomatic differences in their relations and in the way they run their Nations as well as in dealing with Global issues. Among the issues that have made these two Nation to conflict and enter into a cold relationship includes; terrorism, nuclear issues, hostage crisis, Israel, the Iraq and Afghanistan war, human rights violation among other things which are differently viewed between the two nations (Anderson, 1981: 65)

Terrorism has been one of the key aspects that have resulted into major conflicts between America and Iran. It is a problem that immerged from one person’s faith: Khomeini, who believed that “Islam should rule the world and that democracy was the root of all evil”.

On the other had the American society and government is built on the principles on democracy an issue that contradicts the principles of the Iranian government. Since his death, terrorism ideologies begun to spread, with a lot activities targeting the US and its International interests (Ball, 1998: 124).

In recent years there have been plans for larger terrorists’ strikes operation as many dozen terrorist’s networks springing up. Since then, terrorism has taken a strong hold due to support from the Iranian government which they are determined to support despite of the appeals from world governments religious denominations and intervention by US government.

In the last decade, installations in the US have been destroyed as wide scale killing of innocent children and adults has taken place with as brutal hostage crisis have always been experienced as a result of Iran’s support to the extremist organizations. These activities have been claimed by America to be inhuman and a violation of human rights.

This is because the American nation believes in human rights and democracy, which has no place in Iranian government. In addition, the Iran’s’ failure to control the extremist views has resulted to the unrest and destruction of life around the world (Hogan, 1996: 80).

Iran is one nation that has maintained a high profile in encouraging the anti- Israeli terrorist activities. Israel is a major US ally and any adverse action against it is seen as a threat to American interests. Nevertheless Iran has constantly supported for the ethnic cleansing of the Israelis with impunity.

As a result, it has rhetorically, operationally, and financially supported guerilla fighting against Israel. For instance, the Iranian readers such as Khomeini and president Ahmadi-Nejad has been praising the operation conducted by Palestinian terrorists towards Israel as Iran provides the Lebanese Hezbollah and other Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas with logistics and military support.

It has as well offered extensive financial assistance, training and artillery to the terrorist groups in Palestine such as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades as well as the Liberation of Palestine-General Command which Iran doesn’t view as terrorist (Mitchell,2004:16).

This support has strengthened the terrorist who have integrated their operation, an action that has served to alienate further the relations between the two countries resulting in the US calling for sanctions against Iran and labeling it as a terrorist government accusing the Iran government as a world enemy and promising to fight against it (Boyle, 1999: 132).

In addition Iran has continued to play a destabilizing role in Iraq by supporting terrorist operations in Iraq both directly and indirectly. It has engaged in provision of training to some of the Iraq political groups, provided weapons to Shia military groups and training to enable them defeat the agenda of the coalition troops which is led by the US government.

This support has made the Iraqi extremist groups to conduct activities and operations against the country’s government and other organizations in the country resulting to massive loss of life and property. Moreover the increasing hostility of anti-Coalition attacks has been facilitated by Iran in providing the Shia military with the capability to build IEDs which have explosive projectiles similar to the one produced by Iran and Hezbollah (Nation, 1992:54).

This has been facilitated by the act of the Iran revolutionary Guards who with the Hezbollah initiated a training program to Iraq militants on the construction of advanced IED technology which was passed to the rest of Iraq militants. This has facilitated to constant terrorist attacks to US interests by Iranian sponsored weapons (Charles, 1991: 56).

The government of United States as well as other nations like United Kingdom have been accusing the Iranian administration, particularly the Ahmadinejad administration for its role in causing un warranted suffering of the Iraqi people as well as the US military due to its overwhelming support of the terrorist organizations in Iraq (Ninkovich,1988: 62).

In addition Iran’s supports the Shia militias who have continuously attacked the Coalition troops, Iraqi citizens and numerous installations in Iraq aimed at destabilizing the region and frustrating the US in its effort to bring stability in the region this action led to what President George W. Bush termed Iran as the “worlds primary state sponsor of terror” (Clarke, 2005: 161).

The intervention of America in the Iranian terrorism matters raised the level of differences between the two nations. As a result, this has brought about suffering of innocent countries and individuals for example Israel and other US allies when terrorists operations are carried out to these countries aimed at American interests (Paterson, 1988: 364).

For example many American Embassies in different countries have been attacked by Iranian backed terrorists resulting to Massive loss of life and properties. Some of the countries that have been affected by these operations include Kenya, Iraq, and Palestine among others, where people end up losing their lives (Crockatt,1995: 89)

American has viewed this as inhuman acts where unwarranted attacks on people have led to loss of several lives and in turn a threat towards its sovereignty and security.

On the contrary, the Iranian governments believe that this a noble cause whereby the Islamic people are fighting for their freedom from the western world (Powaski,1998: 80). On the other hand, America being a democratic nation has seen this as violation of human rights and basic freedoms which needs to be stopped making the US call for continuous sanctions against Iran. (Friedman. 2000: 108).

In addition to this, Iran has continuously disrespected the united State’ families and victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, the terror attack and the 1983 bombing of the U.S Marines in Lebanon who were sent to keep peace between the Christian and Muslim fighting’s that was going on and resulted to loss of 241 servicemen at a Marines facility in Beirut (Gaddis, 1990: 51).

As a result a judgment of $2.6 billion against the Islamic Republic of Iran has been awarded by the federal court in Washington, D.C., although the families of victims of the 2001 terror attacks are still pursuing the Iranian government to pay the damages for supporting the terrorist attacks.

The Iran government claimed that the accusation on Sept. 11 attack involvement was a big lie against it. Furthermore, on the issue concerning the 1983 Marine attack, Iranian claimed that Ronald Reagan himself needed to be blamed because instead of keeping peace, the U.S army sided with Christians and started bombing Muslims, forcing the Muslims to attack back. Thus the American Government should be sued for lying to people concerning these matters (Roy, 198).

The other major concern that has affected the relationship between America and Iran is the issue of the Nuclear weapon production. The Iran’s operation of production of nuclear weapons sent a spike of fear throughout the world and the world’s peaceful condition was at stake (Sivachev and Nikolai 1979: 43).

This was aggreviated after the United State’s invasion on Saddam concerning the production of nuclear weaponry, which was used by Iraq in bombing Iran during the Iraq-Iran war. On successful elimination of the nuclear weapons from Iraq, Iran took the opportunity to start nuclear operation, an idea that was rejected by United States and other powerful nations. Despite this, it is believed that Iran continues to manufacture nuclear weapons secretly (Gaddis,1987: 67)

This can be attributed to the difference in issues concerning Iranian nuclear program by the US nuclear experts and the US intelligence officials who have more access of vital information concerning Iran.

On the other hand the reports concerning nuclear terrorism on the Iran’s neighboring countries also made Iran fear that its security and political development is at stake if these countries like Pakistan were to attack them hence the Iran leaders and experts had to confront the situation ( Ulam, 1974:97).

This was a matter that the Iranian government was not ready to ignore and the country had to think of the necessary precautions it needed to undertake to prevent any attack that could be brought up by these countries. As a result Iran saw it as a need to have even a minimal nuclear deterrent capacity (Westad, 2006:219).

When the US announced its invasion to Iraq, Iran was supportive though its main objective was to eliminate Saddam’s nuclear threat. However, on the Pakistan and Afghanistan threat to Iran it reconsidered its quitting to shelf its weapons but instead it optimistically took this opportunity to install nuclear defense.

As a result it brought back the old Iranian nuclear threat to other neighboring countries and globally. However, Iran claims that its nuclear production is for defense purpose, a situation that have made Washington to reconsider its perception on Iran, as not simply a nuclear threat, but rather a potential in partnership on fight against global nuclear terrorism(Lewis, 2006: 91).

The US officials hence needed to understand the Iran’s stand on the nuclear terrorism issue to determine whether they were to collaborate with them. However, the collaboration of US-Iran was seen as a gateway that could allow Iran in its ambitions of nuclear weapons, this cooperation between US and Iran on nuclear terrorism campaign was seen to have possibilities in cooperating with Afghanistan, hence neutralizing the call for a nuclear shield against nuclear terrorism.

Although, Iran was no more afraid of Pakistan nuclear attack, US defense Secretary, William Perry, said “there is a real threat of nuclear strike against the US from non-state actors in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” In addition Iranian alleges that the anti-Shi’ite radicals in Pakistan would attempt to attack them if they managed to interrupt and make away with the Iranian nuclear artillery.

These views concerning attacks to Iran and US made their relations on nuclear terrorism fight come to an agreement despite the restrict measures imposed in Iran by US concerning the weapons production ( Zubok,1996: 78).

Despite its fight against nuclear terrorism by other Middle East countries, the Iranian plea to be licensed in nuclear production was denied. This has made the two nations to remain in continuous suspicion of each other concerning their security issues. The US due to Iran’s war like activities any significant increased in its arsenal would result in fears around the worlds and in particular towards the US Since it will be considered that such an amount of unrivaled arsenal would be directed towards the US and its installations in the world.

This can be seen in the US alarm over Iran nuclear ambitious which will jeopardize its peace if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons and attack to United States. Hence it has portrayed Iran as not qualified for nuclear production. However Iran has condemned the US over its double standard nature since other nations in the world are allowed to purse nuclear ambitions while it is not (Ball, 1998: 34)

The Iran-Iraq war was major concern and took the intervention of the United States government. Immediately after the Iran revolution began, Iraq invaded Iran with an aim of stopping the revolution while in its infancy; for fear that the revolution would spread to Iraq. This invasion resulted to an eight year war between the two nations, which led to massive killing of government officials, military and civilians.

This war was condemned by United States, which sent peace troops, and forced them to make for peace resolutions. This action by the US led to resentment by the two countries. In addition, the Marines peace keeper whose mission was to settle the conflict between Christians and Muslims were condemned by Iranian for siding with Christian and attacking Muslims. This resulted to suicide bombing which coasted many American lives and Hatred between the two nations expanded.

The hostage taking of Americans in Iran has also affected the relationship between these two countries. Immediately after the revolution, the Americans in Iran were held hostage with the claim that the United States backed up Shah’s regime. Despite the United States plea to Iran to release their citizens the hostage crises still persisted.

The American families of the victim pleaded with the government as it accused Iran for its actions and refused to agree with the negotiations. This took place in 1979 to 1981, where 52 Americans were held hostage for one year and sixty nine days, after a faction of Islamic students and militias took over the American Embassy as a show of support to the Iranian revolution (Leffler, 2007: 348).

Due to unsuccessful of negotiations for hostage release the US army made an attempt for a rescue operation which failed resulting to death of eight Americans servicemen and one Iranian civilian. This hostage taking was viewed as a “retaliation and reciprocated disbelief” entanglement. It was seen as a blow to the United States governance despite the US freezing all Iranian assets in the in the United States.

The effect of this hostage crisis was had far more adverse effect on the American administration which was accompanied by the loss of presidency of President Jimmy Carter in November 1980. This situation strengthened Khomeini political power and his opposition to the US. On the other hand, it marked the genesis of U.S legal action and fiscal embargos against Iran as well as deteriorating the economic ties between the two nations which has its effect up to date (Gaddis, 1982: 253).

The Iranian government exercises exploitation to its citizen by its faith that democracy is an enemy of development. The minorities like women are exploited and are denied their rights of expression. They are made to be submissive to men. In addition, human rights, concerning movement freedom, speech freedom as well as expression have always been undermined.

This has made the Human Right Programs and movements in the US to intervene and try to reduce exploitation act a move that have been received with hostility in Iran. This is because they consider US as an enemy without the moral authority to intervene in its sovereign matters (LaFeber, 1993: 43).

The United States is also concerned with the false faith that is instilled in Iranians concerning their relation with the US as a result of the Iran’s media and government. For instance the suicide bombing is an issue of a human right of life which is exploited by the Iran’s regime.

From the revolution, the relation between the United States and Iraq have been at stake and involved with a lot of friction concerning human right, terrorism and war among other issues. This has brought about many differences in views concerning both internal and global issues which are disagreed by the two nations. As a result, this has coasted both nations and the world much in terms of properties and lives (January, 2008: 256).

In conclusion after the Iranian revolution, the relations between the two countries have always deteriorated with time as each country pursed its own interests and that of it citizens and allies. Despite the fact that the world is becoming one global village, this realization is still far from becoming a reality to both countries as their differences are continuously increasing in each and every agenda on their tables from human rights to nuclear ambitions (Lundestad, 1999: 412).

Reference List

Anderson, T. 1981, The United States, Great Britain, and the Cold War, 1944-1947, University of Missouri Press, Columbia.

Ball, S. 1998, The Cold War: An International History, 1947-1991, British perspective, London.

Boyle, P. 1993, American-Soviet Relations: From the Russian Revolution to the Fall of Communism, Routledge, New York.

Charles, W. 1991, The Long Postwar Peace, Penguin Press, London.

Clarke, B. 2005, Four Minute Warning: Britain’s Cold War, Tempus Pub Ltd, Gloucestershire.

Crockatt, R. 1995, The Fifty Years War: The United States and the Soviet Union in World Politics, 1941-1991, Routledge, London.

Friedman, N. 2000, The Fifty Year War: Conflict and Strategy in the Cold War, Chatham Publishing, NC.

Gaddis, J. 2005, The Cold War: A New History, Penguin Press, London.

Gaddis, J. 1990, Russia, the Soviet Union and the United States. An Interpretative History, Penguin Press, London.

Gaddis, J. 1987, Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War, Penguin Press, London.

Gaddis, J. 1982, Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy, Penguin Press, London.

Hogan, M. 1996, America in the World: The Historiography of US Foreign Relations since 1941, Chelsea House Publications, PA.

January, B. 2008, The Iranian Revolution, Twenty-First Century Books, IA.

LaFeber, W. 1993, America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-1992, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Leffler, M. 2007, For the Soul of Mankind: The United States, the Soviet Union, and theCold War, Hill and Wang, New York.

Lewis, A. 2006, The American Culture of War: The History of U.S. Military Force from World War II to Operation Iraqi Freedom, Routledge, London.

Lundestad, G. 1999, East, West, North, South: Major Developments in International Politics since 1945, Oxford University Press, London.

Mitchell, G. 2004, The Iron Curtain: The Cold War in Europe, Chelsea House Publications, PA.

Nation, R. 1992, Black Earth, Red Star: A History of Soviet Security Policy, 1917-1991, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Ninkovich, F. 1988, Germany and the United States: The Transformation of the German Question since 1945, Twayne Publishers, Boston.

Paterson, T. G. 1988, Meeting the Communist Threat: Truman to Reagan, Oxford University Press, New York.

Powaski, R. E. 1998, The Cold War: The United States and the Soviet Union, 1917-1991, Oxford University Press, New York.

Sivachev, N. and Nikolai Y. 1979, Russia and the United States, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Taubman, W. 2004, Khrushchev: The Man and His Era, W. W. Norton & Company, New York.

Ulam, A. B. 1974, Expansion and Coexistence: Soviet Foreign Policy, 1917-1973, Hill and Wang, New York.

Westad, O. 2006, The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of our Times, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Zubok, V. M. 1996, Inside the Kremlin’s Cold War, Harvard University Press, MA.

Mideast and Arab Revolutions 2011

Introduction

Throughout the course of last few months, the attention of world’s Medias has been focused on political events that have not only rocked the Arabic world, but also affected Western perspective onto the essence of Mideastern geopolitics. These events are now being commonly referred to as ‘Arab revolutions of 2011’. In this paper, we will aim to explore Arab revolutions’ developmental subtleties and to provide readers with our own interpretation of what had happened.

Analytical part

Even the brief analysis of how seemingly stable political regimes in Tunis, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and Syria had been shaken by the mass-rallies of protesters on the street, invokes the so-called ‘domino effect’, as the making of Arab revolutions proceeded in clearly defined consequential manner.

It all started in Tunis. Despite the fact that former Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali has been maintaining a firm grip on Presidential office since 1987, and despite the fact that, during the course of country’s latest Presidential elections in 2009, he became reelected for the new term, after public protests against his continuous rule started to take place, it did not take him too long to realize that he would be so much better off escaping the country, along with millions of dollars in cash and jewelry.

And, what appears to be particularly odd about Ben Ali’s dictatorship collapsing like a stack of cards, is that it happened in utterly spontaneous and unexpected manner – all of the sudden, Ali realized that country’s riot police was simply in no position to effectively deal with millions and millions of protesters, out on the street.

Moreover, as it has been revealed later, the bulk of these protesters consisted of previously politically unengaged country’s youth. In her article, Eltahawy (2011) states: “It was neither Islamists nor invasion-in-the-name-of-democracy that sent the waters rushing onto Ben Ali’s ship but, rather, the youth of his country” (The Washington Post). There can be little doubt as to the fact that the consequential ‘Egyptian revolution’ has been triggered by Tunisian events.

Just as it used to be the case in Tunis, on January 25, 2001, at least one hundred thousand protestors took to the streets in Cairo, while demanding the resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who has been remaining in country’s Presidential office since 1981.

Initially, Mubarak tried to crush down peaceful demonstrators, while subjecting them to the brutality of a riot police. According to Abed (2011): “Egyptian police used water cannons… [then] riot police used tear gas and rubber bullets on protesters” (Newsweek). This, however, only added oil to the flame of people’s uprising.

After having realized that, due to his unwillingness to resign, Egyptian society was rapidly descending into the state of social chaos, and after more and more police units started to refuse executing his orders, Mubarak dissolved the government and appointed Omar Suleiman as country’s Vice-President.

And, within the matter of a week, Suleiman had announced that Mubarak was willing to resign. As of today, former Egyptian President faces a number of criminal charges, as someone who is believed to have given orders to police to treat protestors in particularly brutal matter.

On February 15, 2011, world’s Medias started to report on the beginning of people’s uprising in Lybia. In the manner, similar with that of Egyptians, thousands and thousands of Lybians began to organize themselves in mass rallies, while demanding from country’s ‘leader for life’ Muammar Gaddafi to step down.

Yet, while being well aware of what happened in Tunis and Egypt, Gaddafi nevertheless decided to hold on to the political power with all his might, while not being afraid to show the strength of his resolution to crack down on protesters. Lybian police has been given orders to shoot at demonstrators at point blank range. When this did not help, Gaddafi resorted to utilization of country’s military forces, while desperately trying to restore ‘restore peace and stability’.

Lybian dictator has gone as far as sending military planes to bomb protesting citizens’ mass rally in Bengasi. As it was reported by Worthington (2011): “As the unrest in Libya spreads to the capital, Tripoli, the Gaddafi regime continues to respond with brute force, using planes to fire on protestors” (Revista Amauta). It goes without saying, of course, that it was only the matter of time, before such Gaddafi’s bloodthirsty tactics would enrage international community.

On March 17, 2011, UN passed resolution, according to which, a number of Western countries were put in charge of enforcing a ‘no-fly zone’ over Lybia. As of today, it is still much too early to conclude whether Western countries’ involvement in Libyan civil war will help country’s opposition to depose Gaddafi.

Even though that it was namely the political turmoil in earlier mentioned countries, which seemed to attract the attention of world’s Medias the most, there has been simultaneous reports of essentially similar events taking place in such Arab countries as Bahrain, Iran, Oman, Yemen and Syria. Just as it used to be initially the case in Tunis, the protestors were demanding the resignation of their countries’ corrupt governments.

And, despite the fact that, as of yet, in Bahrain, Iran, Oman, Yemen and Syria protesting citizens had failed to reach their political objectives, there are good reasons to believe that eventually, they will succeed with it. After all, as history indicates, spraying protesting people with water and shooting at them with rubber bullets had never proven a truly effective method of preserving ‘peace and stability’.

In order for us to be able to assess the actual significance of Arab revolutions, we will need to define what accounted for the sheer extent of former Tunisian, Egyptian and Libyan rulers’ unpopularity with ordinary citizens. And, one does not have to hold PhD in political science to be able to do this – it was namely the fact that, while proclaiming their adherence to the ideals of democracy and progress, Ali, Mubarak and Gaddafi never ceased acting as nothing short of medieval despots.

And, the only reason they were able to do this for a continuous period of time, is because, while positioning themselves as ‘secular’ rulers, they enjoyed the support of Western countries, with Western politicians often turning a blind eye onto the actual state of internal affairs in earlier mentioned Arab countries.

According to the political declaration, issued by Socialist Renewal Current in Egypt (2011): “They [corrupted Arabian rulers] struggle to work under the umbrella of the US, the dominant world power. In return, they are left free-handed to accumulate astounding fortunes and take whatever oppressive measures against their people, who suffer from poverty, unemployment and deteriorating living conditions” (Counter Fire).

Due to Western powers’ traditional fear of Islamic fundamentalism, they were willing to do just about what it takes, in order to protect their geopolitical interests in the region. This included providing a political, financial and very often military support to those Arab dictators what did not mind to be referred to as ‘America’s friends’. Yet, whatever the immoral such Western countries’ political stance might have been, it was indeed helping to maintain political stability in the region.

Therefore, it will only be logical, on our part, to suggest that the actual significance of Arabic revolutions should be discussed within the context of how ‘decline of the West’ manifests itself on international arena. And, one of the foremost aspects of such a decline is the fact that, due to having been subjected to the ideological oppression of political correctness since their early years, more and more Western politicians appear to have grown utterly unaware of what represents their own countries’ geopolitical agenda.

While discussing the political implications of Arabic revolutions, Shavit (2011) comes up with perfectly legitimate suggestion: “The message [of these revolutions] is sharp and clear: The West’s word is no word at all; an alliance with the West is not an alliance. The West has lost it. The West has stopped being a leading and stabilizing force around the world” (Haaretz).

There can be little doubt, of course, that Ali, Mubarak and Gaddafi may be the least referred to as political leaders who thought of ensuring their people’s social, political and economic well-being as their foremost priority. Nevertheless, these individuals never ceased being tough on Islamic fundamentalists.

After all, it is so much better to live in politically corrupted Arab ‘secular’ country, while enjoying the limited number of civil freedoms, then to be living in non-corrupted Islamic state, while continuously facing the prospect of being publically executed, on the account of committing of what Shariatic law considers ‘sins’, such as appearing out on the street with cleanly shaven face (if you are a man), or without wearing a black cloak over the head (if you are a woman).

Thus, it will not be much of an exaggeration to say that, the manner in which Arab revolutions broke out, and the manner in which traditionally White countries now tackle the issue, confirms once again that slowly but surely, mainstream Western politicians are being deprived of the remains of their perceptional sanity.

On one hand, while boarding planes in America, passengers are being asked to give away their toothpaste, as the security measure meant to prevent Al-Qaeda members from committing the acts of terror in midair, but on another, American military planes bomb pro-governmental military targets in Lybia – hence, helping Al-Qaeda to reach its objectives in this country.

As it was pointed out by Yousafzai and Moreau (2011): “Exiled Libyans with connections to Al Qaeda are racing to find ways to send people home, in hope of steering the anti-Gaddafi revolt in a radical Islamist direction, according to several senior Afghan Taliban sources in contact with Al-Qaeda”. As popular saying goes – when God wants to punish people, he prevents them from being to utilize their sense of rationale.

Thus, the actual consequences of Arab revolutions are best defined as rather ambivalent. After having overthrown ‘secular’ dictators, the revolting people in the concerned Arab countries will initially be able to attain a number of civil freedoms. Nevertheless, due to the actual realities of Arabian living, it appears very doubtful that the ‘liberated’ citizens will be able to enjoy these freedoms for too long.

The reason for this is simple – given the fact that, with the possible exception of Bahrain, the majority of people in Arab countries where revolutions had taken place, continue to be subjected to poverty, it makes them naturally predisposed towards supporting populist political movement.

And, the strongest populist movements in the region are of clearly Islamist nature. As Narvey (2011) had put it: “When talk turns to the possibilities of revolution through the Arab Middle East, critics will often point out that the cure seems worse than the disease.

Islamist thugs lurk in the shadows, ready to pick up the pieces almost everywhere throughout the region” (The Propagandist). Therefore, only very naïve people may genuinely believe that the Arab revolutions of 2011 will indeed result in popularization of democratic values in this part of the world.

Conclusion

The following are paper’s foremost conclusions:

  1. The outbreak of Arabic revolutions has been instigated by the fact that, throughout the course of recent decade, the process of designing internal and foreign policies in Western countries had ceased being correlative with the notion of sanity.
  2. The main consequence of these revolutions is the fact that, within the matter of very short time, the spread of radical Islamism in the region will attain exponential momentum. This will partially come as the result of region other ‘secular’ rulers’ realization of the fact that, while ordering toilet bowls for their yachts to be made out of pure gold, they can no longer rely on Western countries’ support.

References

Abed, Mohammed “”. Newsweek. 2011. Web.

Egypt: Breaking the Chains of Tyranny, Poverty and Corruption. 2011.

Counter Fire. 2011. Web.

Eltahawy, Mona “”. The Washington Post. 2011. Web.

Narvey, Jonathon “Thoughts on Revolution in the Arab World”. The Propagandist. 2011. Web.

Shavit, Ari “”. Haaretz.Com. 2011. Web.

Worthington, Andy “Revolution in Libya: Protesters Face Gaddafi’s Murderous Backlash as US, UK Ooze Hypocrisy”. Revista Amauta. 2011. Web.

Yousafzai, Sami & Moreau, Ron “”. Business Insider. 2011. Web.

The Egyptian Revolution

Introduction

For 30 years, Egypt enjoyed a despicable stability under Hosni Mubarak until February 11, 2011 who, after eighteen days of mass street protests, was forced to step down unconditionally. The revolution that began on January 25th until 11th of February the same year unearthed the political and economic disparity that existed and ensured the continuity of his rule (Abu Hatab 14).

Seemingly, the revolution was a success as far as removing Mubarak from power is concerned. However, few literatures exist on the issues that led to the revolution in the first place. The research paper highlights the economic reasons such as unemployment that led to the fall of the Mubarak regime. Further, it reveals the future challenges that the current authority faces in establishing trust by the people in matters of economy.

Before the Revolution

After Anwar Sadat’s assassination, Hosni Mubarak came into power in Egypt with everyone in the country expressing optimism and trust in the new administration. In the first years of his rule, Mubarak expressed tolerance, but this was short-lived, as it culminated to an authoritarian rule. Civil rights were restricted, political rights were thrown out of the window, and there was a unilateral amendment of the party law with the repression of any vocal political opponents.

There were reports that the elections in 1990 and 1995 (Abdelhamid, and el-Baradei 37), as well as those in 2000 were altered to allow the National Democratic Party (NDP), the ruling party at the time, a simple majority in parliament. The party laws only favoured a candidate in the ruling party from running for the presidency. A state of emergency had been in existence since 1981. It prohibited strikes, mass unions, and riots in the name of national security.

Despite these restrictive regulations, Egypt experienced considerable riots and strikes in the years 2004. This was a manifest of the growing social discontent in the country (Beinin 56). The series of labour strikes continued after this period. They had a mass effect on the government, as they seemed more effective in driving a point than the calls by the opposition leaders.

The financial crisis that occurred led to mass labour unrests in the year 2010 particularly in the private sector, which had been profoundly affected. In these protests, a large number of people came out to demand their rights. This surpassed those who had assembled in the previous political protests. This signifies that the problems they had were not political but socio-economic.

When the first regime came to power after independence, it formulated strategies such as agricultural projects to improve yields and infrastructural development, as well as economic sustainability (O’Brien 14). However, successive regimes have lived short of the public expectations with revolts marking the history of the nation since independence.

Professor Kandeel, an economist and development advisor at Georgetown University, states that there was a financial and economic mismanagement of the country by the government with accumulation of the public debts and a struggling economy (1). The international community was lenient on the country with the IMF forgiving the debt owed the government in the late 1990s with the American government doing the same.

After the intervention, Egypt’s economy grew steadily between 1990 and 2009 at an average rate of 4.5% annually. Despite this growth, Kandeel claims that the beneficiaries were the wealthy people and those in power with development being unbalanced and marginal (1). He states that, before the 1990s, the nation was marked by poverty especially in the 83 million residents, and that poverty doubled since 1982.

In 2009, for example, the poverty level stood at 18 million people, which was a fifth of the population, below the poverty line with the middle class also having to struggle because of unemployment. On the other end of the line were the rich regime leaders, their associates, and rich businesspersons who constituted only a small fraction of the population, but with the most say in the government of the day (Kandeel 5).

The social problems did not develop only in the period of Mubarak’s reign, but were also evident in times of Anwar Al-Sadat and the first leader Gamel Abdel Nasser. These parties have a substantial share of blame behind the poor performance of the world’s economy and the rising standards of living. In the period of 1990 and 2009, the rate of unemployment was about 11% throughout the country. This was much higher than the reported. In the late 2010, it stood at 2.3 million people (Kandeel 6).

The returning expatriates from other Arab states, such as Tunisia, experiencing political upheavals also aggravated the riots. Kandeel goes ahead to emphasize that, since these people returning mainly from Libya could not make a living, and there was no economic activity immediately available to them, the unemployment rate was set to raise causing further upheavals in the already polarised nation (7).

In his report, Shmuel, the director of studies at the institute for policy and strategy in Herzliya, Israel, claims that deep economic unease accompanied by social discomfort led to the revolts that spread across the Arabic world including Egypt (1). He goes ahead to explain that the leadership was ailing with the withdrawal of the traditional support that the west has always provided following previous revolutions (Shmuel 8).

In the last decade, leading up to the revolution, the purchasing power of the ordinary Egyptians had been declining. The consumer peak index (CPI) rocketed and peaked in late 2008 hitting 23.6% in August of that year. The driving force included the high food prices observed (Jones et al 12). The wages and salaries of the workers however remained constant with some in the private and public sector declining and retrenchment taking place.

The rising cost of living meant that the Egyptians were not able to afford the rising cost of food. The inflation led to volatile environments with people expressing discontent at the management of the crisis by the government. The middle class slipped into low class status with those in the least class having to deal with the worst economic times of their time.

It is reported that the prevalence of absolute poverty was at 23.4% in 2008/2009 period, which was an increase from the 16.7% incidence observed in 2001/2001 (World Bank 54). This is a reversal of the gain made in the late 1990s.

The government tried to reduce the burden on the people by continually financing the food subsidy system in place already despite its being expensive. By raising the salaries of civil servants, the measures were not enough to roll back the negative effects. They served to worsen further the inflation rather than improving the purchasing power. The revolt therefore was continually gaining momentum. It only needed an incident to trigger it. This opportunity was provided in the form of the popular Arab revolt.

After the Revolution

After the president stepped down, the military (the supreme council of the armed forces) took control of the government and provided transitional rule to this Arab state with Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi taking charge. Tantawi was the defence minister whose role was to rule the country until parliamentary elections were held with the election of Egypt’s newest president.

The aims of the military council to facilitate parliamentary elections did not mention any economic reforms. It mainly consisted of people appointed by the former president. This raises the question of commitment on the part of this authority in the betterment of the living standards of the ordinary people in terms of securing employment.

The indication that the constitution was to be amended with little, if any, public or political involvement is one such factor of credibility for this authority. This is true considering that there was little room for women in the constitutional reform and the rush in which the referendum followed the proposed change thus giving little time for a consultation and public debate.

The council seemed to ignore the public, as it did not honor the protesters’ demands for the release of political prisoners or the end of the long lasting emergency law. Other issues not addressed included the lack of investigations into the murder of protesters and the amnesty demanded.

Despite the change in regime labor unrest continued with the council approving a law on the 24th of March that banned any unrest besides punishing anyone participating in them. This dimmed the gains that had seemingly been made by the revolution. There was also a growing concern on how the money allocated for transition would be used (Cassarino, and Tocci 3).

In June 2012, a candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Morsi won the presidential elections beginning the struggle for power with the ruling military council. Both exhibited a power struggle with the parliament coming in the way. In August the same year, the defence minister who briefly acted as the president was forced into retirement.

This was a positive indicator for the people. The president also chose to visit China first to cement the trade collaboration to the surprise of the West. The Obama administration had previously counselled a debt of one billion dollars owed by the republic of Egypt. The cost of living is still high with an employment rate remaining high. However, people are trying to adjust in the new leadership.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the history of the popular Egypt revolt is critical to master in understanding the future for this country. Dissatisfied with existing political, social, and economic injustices in the country, and following the popular Arabic revolt, the Egyptians took to the streets demanding their rights. They inspired to make political and social changes. Their drive included the raised cost of living, the continuing political intolerance, and the feeling of betrayal by the high social class that had governed them for 30 years.

Change was achieved, but this seemed like a mirage since the resulting authority did not seem to make any favourable change. Oppression continued under this new rule with most of the promises made going unfulfilled. After the elections, the Muslim Brotherhood winner, Morsi, is yet to be tested. The economy is yet to recover with signs of rough times ahead.

Works Cited

Abdelhamid, Daisy, and Laila el-Baradei. “Reforming the Pay System for Government Employees in Egypt.” ERF Working Paper 151.149(2009): 1-41. Print.

Abdulbaki, Lisbon. “Democracy and the re- consolidation of authoritarian rule in Egypt.” Contemporary Arab Affairs 1.3(2008): 445-463. Print.

Abu Hatab, Assem “Egypt within the Framework of the Global Financial Crisis: Impact, Response and Way Forward.” IJMES 2.1(2009): 8-25. Print.

Beinin, Joel. Neo-liberal Structural Adjustment, Political Demobilization, and Neoauthoritarianism in Egypt, The Arab State and Neo-Liberal Globalization, The Restructuring of State Power in the Middle East. Ithaca: Ithaca Press, 2009. Print.

Cassarino, John, and Nicole Tocci. Rethinking the EU’s Mediterranean Policies Post-1/11, IAI Working Papers, 1106, 2011. Web.

Jones, Nemron et al. Impact of the Economic Crisis and Food and Fuel Price Volatility on Children and Women in the MENA Region. Working Paper No. 310, ODI and UNICEF, 2009. Web.

Kandeel, Amal. “Egypt at a Crossroads.” Middle East Policy 18.2(2011): 5-7. Print.

O’Brien, Perez. “An Economic Appraisal of the Egyptian Revolution.” The Journal of Development Studies 1.1(2002):14-46. Print.

Shmuel, Bar. “America’s Fading Middle East Influence.” Policy Review 1.1(2011): 23-56. Print.

World Bank. , 2009. Web.

Middle East Revolutions

Introduction

Middle East Revolutions have been waves of mass demonstrations in the Middle East and other Arab nations, calling for the resignation of regimes in power. These could also be called popular coups and in the contemporary society they have been referred to as Twitter Revolutions. The first successful revolution was carried out in Tunisia, Africa, after more than a month of demonstrations that forced the downfall of the government of the then president Ben Ali on January 14, 2011.

The revolution in Tunisia ignited the Egyptian Revolution, which was also successful and led to the resignation of the then president Hosni Mubarak on February 11, 2011, after withstanding eighteen days of mass protests. Since then, revolutionary uprising are being held in Yemen, Bahrain, Iraq, Algeria, Libya, Jordan and Oman. Libya has been hard hit as what started as a peaceful demonstration has turned out to be a bloody fight between government troops and rebel forces.

The spectacle in Libya of the fierce fighting between government troops and rebel forces has received worldwide condemnation as the combatants are said to be committing crimes against humanity. This has led to the invasion of the country by NATO forces led by France in an effort to protect civilian and ensure human rights are observed and maintained.

A humanitarian crisis is thus building up Libya. The fierce opposition of the demonstrations by Gadhaffi forces has served to remind the protestors and the whole world that revolutions are not always peaceful and could be at times be bloody, and uncertain of when they will be concluded and whether they will be successful or abortive.

The Middle East governments have been urged to listen to the plea of the people and change their tactics of ruling the people to serving the people. The various leaders involved have started to change tactics for example instituting reforms rather than resign. In Morocco, the monarchy in power has doubled the staple foods and cooking gas subsidies while the Saudi Arabia counterpart has announced the allocation of 36 billion dollars to benefit the poor.

Globally, the prices of crude oil have been rising each day making it hard for many nations’ economies to cope with the cost of production. The revolutions have been termed to be facilitated by the improved information and technology with social networking playing the biggest role in organizing successful revolts. That is why some of the revolts have been termed as Twitter Revolutions. Discussed below is the role of information technology in the revolts.

Social networks in facilitating the revolutions

With improvement in technology in the 21st century, social networks and digital media have overtaken any other form of communication in the world. Technology has speeded up globalization process and in turn witnessed cultural sharing around the globe (Castells 67). The digital media has become one of the most important tools in influencing political and economic affairs. People around the world have become more enlightened about world affairs and their rights.

Social networks are free, easy and convenient for people of all lifestyles to open and own an account as long as internet is available. Facebook and Twitter are innovations of the 21st century, which have heavily affected the system of governance. In the Middle East, through the social networks, people started staging mass demonstrations in protest against various regimes like that of Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, pressurizing him to resign, in what could be termed as Twitter Revolution.

Technological advancement especially in the media industry has been the major factor in influencing and speeding the process of globalization. Globalization and the digital media have facilitated more knowledge sharing and collaborations. The social networks are entertaining and at times addictive.

This guarantees the sites millions of followers and in the process of socializing, information is shared and dispersed. In the recent past, the sites have become more business and political oriented. People have started to question the system of government in their respective countries after comparing it with other models of governments elsewhere.

Reactions by the governments

Overwhelmed by the uprisings, the Middle East governments have resulted in banning Twitter and other social networks. For instance, though not directly, Egyptian government had been using Chomsky’s propaganda model to justify themselves. The governments argued that the social networks were only interested in tapping the large Egyptian population as a resource and not in providing the crucial information. The government further refuted its image as portrayed on Twitter arguing that the information was biased and not objective.

The information, to the regime, was structured in a way to set up the masses against their own government. To the government, Twitter, being a foreign owned corporation, was only interested in advertising itself and had no interest in the affairs of the Egyptian people. It was also argued that exiled personalities and anti-government movements were using the site to fund the protesters creating chaos and anarchy (Castells 34).

Causes of the Revolutions

In Egypt, the former President had ruled for over thirty years of which is common in Middle East to rule for a long time. Egypt has remained a third world country with high levels of unemployment yet it was among the first countries of the world to experience civilization. The government was accused of being dictatorial, corrupt and failed to guarantee press freedom.

Most of the over eighty million people remain unemployed and the few employed have poor working conditions and poor salaries. Egypt’s problems are shared by other nations in the Middle East and the Arab world. Most of the Middle East countries have a similar pattern of government; either dictatorial or monarchical. Democracy is never exercised.

The political leaders have been in power for decades, dictatorial and oppressive. Economic developments are minimal and the masses languish in poverty. However, the leaders of these regions are the richest among the political class of the world raising an alarm among the people.

Some are known to lead flamboyant lifestyles owning property in other parts of the world like Europe and America. There are also monarchies in this region which do not allow democratic elections. Leaders in power are not competent since they are in power not because of their capability but because of their family lineage.

Comparing their form of government with democracies like the US, the people of the region have sought to change the status quo. The Egyptian Revolution was inspired by the Tunisian Revolution, which had just ousted the then incumbent president, Ben Ali. The participants of the revolutions were ordinary people and not militias or guerrilla fighters and thus were unarmed.

The effectiveness of the uprising primarily relied on the number of people protesting, thus a medium to communicate with the people, urging them to turn up in large numbers was very necessary. Twitter and Face Book thus became the perfect platform for mass interaction.

External support for the revolutions

The Egyptian media corporations and those of other Middle East nations are mainly state owned or government friendly and thus could not show or portray any anti government sentiments. The influence of the government on media created suspicion from the people and hence these local media could not be trusted. People turned to internationally credible media corporations like CNN, BBC and Al Jazeera. The social networks also become very famous.

Where television broadcasts had been cut off, people could follow CNN, Al Jazeera, BBC and other television cables on the internet. Twitter allows users to view the tweets and messages if they have an account. To follow the proceedings, people registered on Twitter in large numbers and further uniting the masses.

This led to the government’s use of propaganda model to claim Twitter was using the chaos to reap hefty profits and thus was manufacturing and structuring news to suit what they felt would attract more viewers and followers instead of remaining objective. Leaders like El- Baradei, a Nobel Prize winner, were able to directly link with the people.

The rise of use of Twitter, Facebook and online news channels led the government of Egypt to block internet access especially. This brought about international condemnation as was against the rights of people to acquisition of information, against press freedom and freedom of association.

The government did not own up rather blamed the internet failures on the demonstrators. The masses were already educated and sensitized enough, so demonstrations could not be deterred or stopped. International community was very vocal in condemning this act and the internet-oriented companies like Google tried to help in solving the situation by sending direct IP port for use by the people on their handsets.

Smart mobs perspective

Revolutions in the Middle East could also be analyzed from the smart mob perspective propagated by Rheingold. The notion holds that there is emergence of popular revolts by the masses once there is technological advancement. The masses in context (smart mob) are not related nor acquainted with one another (Rheingold & Raatma 76). However, they are faced with common problems like poverty and unemployment.

The smart mobs use the technologically manufactured gadgets to relate with one another. They act intelligently and efficiently; as technology advances the cost of microprocessors that link people decrease. The technological advances highlighted by Rheingold include blogs, wireless gadgets like mobile phones, chats and computing technology.

In the Middle East and many other third world countries, wireless gadgets like mobile phones have become the most used tools for accessing the internet to the ordinary person. Prior to the 21st Century, mobile phones were not common in Africa. However the past decades has witnessed radical changes in telecommunication industries around the world.

Telecommunication industries have become the highest revenue generators all over Africa with the richest persons in Africans according to Forbes falling in the line of telecommunication industry. Of the Egyptians listed in the 2010 Forbes list of richest Africans, the leading pack were in the telecommunication sector.

Internet access through the phones and the development of smart phones is a new phenomenon in Africa and many other third world countries. Phone manufacturing companies like Nokia have spent much of their resources advertising their brand in the new markets in third world countries which in turn made massive sales of phones. On the course of the revolutions, many people have been using phones to access Twitter and Facebook pages.

This enables people to organize the venues and time of the demonstrations enabling them to counter the imposed curfews by the government. Most of these phones have a camera device, which enabled people to capture the events on the ground uploading the pictures on Facebook and Twitter for all to see. To counter this, the governments have been blocking the internet (Hudson 1).

Failure of governments to prevent the revolutions

In Egypt, through uploading pictures and videos of the events on the ground, there was no way the government could have been able to prevent the world from assessing the situation. This led to many nations sending airplanes for their people trapped in Egypt and the country lost millions of dollars in the tourism industry and other sectors. Leaders of the revolution were also able to communicate with other world leaders through webcam.

Debates and negotiations could be initiated and held via the internet something that has never been witnessed. The government was overwhelmed by the mass demonstrations and all efforts to thwart the revolts became futile. Military deployment led to more condemnation. US President Barrack Obama together with other world leaders pressurized the Egyptian administration to heed to the will of the people and resign.

Without the international support, the president had no option but to resign. The successive Egyptian Revolution inspired many more revolts in the world. The Arab nations of Middle East and North Africa are plugged into chaos. From Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen to Libya.

Yemen has totally blocked Twitter in an attempt to thwart the uprising. However, IP port and addresses from Twitter in collaboration with Google are being circulated by television networks especially Al Jazeera in an attempt by the rest of the world to assist the oppressed mob agitating for their rights.

Muammar Gadhaffi, the Libyan dictator who has ruled for over forty-two years, has remained adamant. Libyan forces have been using excessive force in suppressing the demonstrators. Though Twitter and Facebook are partially blocked, pictures posted on those two sites show horrible scenes of human rights violation (Hudson 2).

The international community led by France has consequently invaded Libya (Perry Link 1). There has been established a no-fly zone to deter Libyan fighter jets from further killing innocent civilians. No matter the efforts by these dictatorial regimes, the masses have the unifying bond in the internet, which they have enjoyed for a couple of years (Raatma 54).

The dictatorial regimes have a tendency of filtering the content in local media. The powerful regimes control production, distribution and influence in the consumption of the information. The Middle East countries have remained relatively behind in the information dispensation sector and freedom of the press (The Daily Bell 1). Globalization has changed the status quo by enabling connectivity and intermingling of people in different countries. Those countries that block the worldwide links and networks are heavily condemned.

Possible solutions

However, the internet-engineered revolutions have had a major impact on global peace and economy. In Egypt, there were rowdy mobs whose aim was looting. Egypt has one of the richest cultural heritage and artifacts. Historical artifacts were targeted by the looters, of which some of the artifacts are thousands of years old.

Economy of Egypt has been greatly destabilized and the country might never recover. It is not guaranteed the next government will be better than that of Hosni Mubarak or the Ben Ali’s regimes (Steavenson 1). Instead of violent revolution, it would be better if people used other channels and the general media to tackle their problems together. It would be better to engage in diplomatic negotiation and other non-violent forms as violence results to more violence.

The constitutions of these countries should have clauses preventing leaders from holding office for more than ten years and leaders must be vetted and authorized to declare their wealth. However, oppressive governments must be removed from power to ensure human rights are not violated and development initiatives are encouraged and supported.

Works Cited

Castells, Manuel. Communication Power. London: Oxford University Press. 2009.

Castells, Manuel. End of Millennium: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, 2010.

Hudson John. The ‘Twitter Revolution’ Debate: The Egyptian Test Case. The Atlantic Wire. 2011.

Perry Link. ‘‘’’nybooks, 2011. Web.

Raatma, Lucia. Social Networks. New York: Cherry Lake Publishers, 2010.

Rheingold Howard & Raatma, Lucia Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. New York: Basic Books, 2003.

Steavenson, Wendell. ‘‘’’ The New Yorker. 2011. Web.

The Daily Bell. ‘‘’’ The daily bell, 2011. Web.

Causes of the 1917 Russian Revolution

The collapse of Tsarism was the result of a crisis deep within the Russian State. It was caused by three factors: the incapacity of the Tsarist economy to deal with modern industrial war, the organization of the mass army drawn from the peasantry and working class, and a growing hatred of the war amongst those who bore the brunt of it. These general processes culminated in the contrast between the paralysis of the ruling class and the high temper, discipline, and intelligence of the industrial workers of St. Petersburg, steeped in revolutionary agitation for a generation and trained by the revolution of 1905. Thesis, The causes of the Russian Revolution 1917 can be explained as a combination of political, social, and economic factors and the incapacity of the government and Tsar to introduce radical reforms and fundamental changes.

At the beginning of the XX century, Russia was the only country in Europe ruled by a monarch. An inefficient system of government weakened the position of Tsar and resulted in the growth of political consciousness. Liberal ideas from Europe penetrated the country and resulted in new social and cultural values and norms. Service (1999) underlines that Tsarist’ stagnancy’ and ‘oppression’ have been widely exaggerated[1]. Russian pre-revolutionary development was active, the play of ideas was extraordinarily free, and the industrial proletariat had congregated in enterprises that were larger than anywhere else in the world. Ideas of Karl Marx and Marxism penetrated Russia and were borrowed and transformed by Lenin. Following Karl Marx, political activists believed that industrial progress intensified and sharpened the antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, an antagonism that would in the future explodes in a violent revolution[2]. Marx thought that the Industrial Revolution, and the concomitant rule of the bourgeoisie, promoted the unification of the world and obliterated national differences. Communism, he thought, would abolish nations themselves[3].

Other political discrepancies were caused by the collapse of Tsarism, so unexpected and so complete that all political groups were catapulted into a scramble for power. The sovereignty formerly embodied in the Russian monarchy and its parliamentary system, the State Duma, remained dissolved while the capital was plunged into the anarchy caused by the undirected mass movement[4]. Before the revolution, there was no substantial theoretical disagreement between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks: they both thought Russia was too backward for a Socialist revolution headed by the industrial proletariat, and consequently would have to have a ‘bourgeois’ revolution first. Also, “Britain and the United States were reluctant to support groups they considered to be supporters of the autocratic Tsar” [5]. That is, it was thought the Russian bourgeoisie would have to eliminate the feudal heritage of Tsarism and lay the foundation for a capitalist economy in which the productive forces of the country as a whole would be multiplied, while the proletariat would develop concomitantly to the point of being able to carry out later its own revolution for the construction of Socialism[6].

Social causes took their roots in political and economic instability of country and inability of Tsarism to adapt to the new global economy. Culturally and intellectually Russia was a country which presented two different faces to the world[7]. The two decades or so before 1917 have been described as the ‘Silver Age’ of Russian culture, the ‘Russian Renaissance’, and similar expressions which emphasize the innovative nature and high aesthetic quality of its artistic and literary achievements. Indeed, many of Russia’s poets, painters and musicians formed the avant-garde of contemporary European culture[8]. The achievements are undeniable, but they were, of course, the exclusive preserve of the educated upper classes and intellectual elite. By contemporary western standards, levels of popular education and literacy in Russia were distressingly low. The majority of the peasant population was still illiterate, and in any case had far more urgent problems of sheer day-to-day survival to struggle with. Once again we are faced with a contradiction: that of a country whose brilliant artistic, scientific and literary[9].

Ethic composition of the population also influenced ideas and new values of people. For instance, in 1917, Russians accounted for only 40 per cent of the total. The rest was composed of a huge heterogeneous and multi-lingual collection of national minorities of widely differing size and levels of civilization[10]. Throughout the history of the Empire these had periodically expressed their discontent at their subject status and at continuing Russian domination. This manifested itself in many forms, from acts of individual protest and civil disobedience to full-scale and fully armed national insurrections calling for separation and autonomy[11].

In global context, Russia represented a low developed countries faced by inadequate economic system and social inequalities. Russia’s industrial backwardness in comparison with the other major European powers had been exposed and highlighted by its defeat in the Crimean War (1853-56)[12]. Consequently, although not immediately, the government embarked on an intensive program of industrialization at the turn of the century which catapulted Russia from being one of the least economically developed countries in Europe to one of the world’s leading industrial producers. In the process, Russia rapidly took on all the appearance and substance of a modern capitalist economy. For the first time in its history the country developed a large industrial labor force, or proletariat, and an economically powerful middle class of businessmen, bankers, lawyers, financiers and factory-owners[13]. At the same time, the great majority of the population, about 80 per cent, was still made up of communally organized peasants, working and living in their villages in conditions which had altered little since the eighteenth century. Russia was still an overwhelmingly agrarian society. Following Darby (1997): “Resistance to popular demands was impossible in the climate o 1917. In the absence of coercion the peasants, workers and soldiers could simply disobey landlords, managers and officers, thereby destroying the authority of the politicians in government” [14]. This existence of a modern, industrial society with a large peasantry whose economic interests were long neglected by the government is a key factor and cause of the 1917 Revolution.

One of the minor causes was involvement of Russia in WWI. Thus, historians (Smith 2002; Shukman, 1987) question the impact of this cause the Russian Revolution. The paradox was that Russia had a great imperial power with formidable military resources at its disposal, but, on the other hand, its army seemed increasingly incapable of fulfilling its tasks, either of waging victorious war or of containing the internecine forces of civil unrest[15].

It is possible to say that the Russian Revolution was a consequence of European movement and the wave of revolutions caused by new industrial and class relations. It was Russian socio-economic backwardness as a whole that subjected the entire society to unprecedented events, aggravated by the war and political ideas of Marxism. The Russian Empire at the beginning of the twentieth century contained a mixture of wealth and grinding poverty; power and debility; backwardness and modernity; despotism and urgent demand for change. This is not a situation which is historically peculiar to Russia found in many underdeveloped or developing societies throughout the world today.

Footnotes

  1. [Service, R. The Russian Revolution, 1900-27 (3rd edn), London: Macmillan, 1999): 34.
  2. Acton, Edward, Vladimir Cherniaev, and William G. Rosenberg, eds. A Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1914–1921. (Bloomington, 1997): 6.
  3. Ibid., 9
  4. Smith, S.A. The Russian Revolution: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002): 38.
  5. Anderson, P. Why Did the Bolsheviks Win the Russian Civil War? Peter Anderson Compares the Tactics and Resources of the Two Sides. History Review (2002): 22.
  6. Shukman, H. (ed.) The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the Russian Revolution, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987).72.
  7. Ibid, 87.
  8. Ibid, 88.
  9. Acton, Edward, Vladimir Cherniaev, and William G. Rosenberg, eds. A Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1914–1921. (Bloomington, 1997): 76.
  10. Smith, S.A. The Russian Revolution: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002): 71.
  11. Ibid., 73.
  12. Ibid., 82.
  13. Ibid., 86.
  14. Darby, G. The October Revolution. History Review 1, no. 28 (1997): 33.
  15. Smith, S.A. The Russian Revolution: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002): 62.

Bibliography

Shlapentokh, D. Voices of Revolution, 1917. Journal article by Dmitry; The Historian, 67 no. 1 (2005): 169.

‘On Revolution and the Printed Word’ by Elizabeth Eisenstein

Introduction

Printing is an important aspect of communication in contemporary society. It is described as the act of reproducing images and texts on a print medium. In this case, a print medium refers to any material that images or texts are reproduced on (Guenkel 2003). It includes, among others, paper and plastic.

In most cases, the printing activity is carried out on a large scale, as a result passing on information to a large number of people. Printing has various implications on the society today.

For example, there is no doubt that printing has significantly affected the acquisition and dissemination of information and knowledge in the society today. Print medium has being blamed for spreading revolutionary ideas in the society, serving as a catalyst for both cultural and political revolutions.

The current paper is written against this background. In the paper, the author will critically analyze the article ‘On Revolution and the Printed Word’ by Elizabeth Eisenstein. The article was extracted from the Journal of Revolution in History, which is published by the Cambridge University Press in London, Melbourne, Sydney, New York, Cambridge, and New Rochelle.

The article was published in 1986. Elizabeth Eisenstein in her article is of the view that printing plays a big role in revolutions (Eisenstein 190). The article has been evaluated through the use of facts and evidences.

In the paper, a critical discussion of the arguments made by Eisenstein is provided. The author also sought to establish the connection between print medium and democracy in the society. The arguments made by Eisenstein are analysed in relation to the effects of print medium in the society.

Literature Review

Elizabeth Eisenstein is of the view that printing is crucial in the generation and distribution of knowledge (Eisenstein 1986). People use printing medium to express their opinions and disseminate them to their target audience. The medium helps in eradicating ignorance among members of the society (Horbart 2000, p. 40).

It is a fact beyond doubt that printing media, such as newspapers, journals, and periodicals, are effective tools in the generation and distribution of knowledge and information in the society. However, there are other forms of media that are better and more efficient in passing information than print medium.

The popularity of the other mediums is increasing. They include audio and audio-visual mediums, which have significantly affected publishing (Eisenstein 1986). In addition, the increasing popularity of the internet has affected the relevance of printing mediums in the society today.

In this article, Eisenstein (1986) argues that printing plays a significant role in shaping the world’s history, especially by determining the ‘fate of nations’. Most treaties signed in the past were printed out. The trend has persisted today, with world leaders engaging in the practice of signing printed treaties and agreements.

The method is favoured over other forms of media given that a printed document is used for future reference, especially when disputes arise. It is a fact that printed agreements plays a significant role in achieving democracy in the society.

However, there are some instances when diplomacy fails to work and communities resort to other forms of solving disputes, such as engaging in war (Porter 2009, p. 36). The trend is common in the society today, with nations engaging their enemies in war. What this means is that print mediums do not fully determine the future of nations.

According to Eisenstein (1986), print media is the most preferred channel of generating and passing information compared to other forms of media. Printed documents are more presentable compared to handwritten documents. Such documents as letters are more attractive when they are printed than when they are handwritten. When printed, the documents bring about a sense of formality (Eisenstein 1986).

There is no doubt that printed documents are more suitable compared to handwritten ones. However, a printed document loses some of its original aspects. For example, authenticity is comprised given that it is hard to directly link the document to the sender or the person who prepared it (Bolter 2004, p. 130). As such, people tend to lose faith in printed medium.

Technological innovations have created mediums that are better and more efficient compared to print medium. They include, among others, electronic mails and audio-visual channels.

Such forms of communication are more efficient, faster, and safer than print medium, which enhances the security of information. It is not easy for unauthorised third parties to have access to the information, which is not the case in print medium (Eisenstein 1986).

Print medium plays a significant role in the creation of democracies. It acts as a tool of disseminating information. It helps in spreading radical political ideologies, which promote revolutions against oppressive leadership and policies (Jones 2002, p. 161).

In Cambodia, print media, such as newspapers, played a significant role in the country’s democratic revolution. During the rule of Khmer Rouge, the pint medium was widely used to condemn the oppressive policies of the administration. The medium united the people of Cambodia against the oppressive regime.

The role played by the print media in promoting democracy in Cambodia cannot be overlooked. However, the medium encountered various challenges in achieving this.

For example, print medium was not very popular among the Cambodians since it was inaccessible to many, especially those living in remote and inaccessible rural areas. In addition, majority of Cambodians are illiterate. The illiteracy negatively affected the effectiveness of print medium in spurring democratic revolution.

In addition to spurring democratic revolutions, print medium enlightens the people, educating them on almost all aspects of life. Spreading ideas among a large group of people creates a sense of togetherness and acts as a motivating factor in revolutions (Kipphan 2001, p. 142). The unity created empowers people to push for reforms in governance and other issues facing them in the society.

The print medium plays a major role in the promotion of social democracy by inciting members of the society to push for reforms. It is a fact that print medium significantly influenced and promoted the fight for human rights and restoration of democracy in Cambodia. However, the medium is not popular among the local communities, hindering its effectiveness in spurring major reforms.

Conclusion

As already stated in the paper, printing is the act of reproducing texts and images. It is a very important tool in the push for reforms in the society since it enlightens a large number of people on matters pertaining to their rights. As such, print medium significantly affects the success of political and cultural revolutions in the society.

The medium has played a significant role in the restoration of democracy in many states, among them Sweden, Cambodia, Denmark, and Austria. The role played by the print medium cannot be underestimated. However, the medium is slowly losing its popularity due to the introduction of improved and more efficient means of communication (Guenkel 2003).

References

Bolter, J 2004, Remediation: understanding new media, MIT Press, Cambridge.

Eisenstein, EL 1986, ‘On revolution and the printed word’, Journal of Revolution in History, vol. 9 no. 1, pp. 186-205.

Guenkel, D 2003, ‘What’s the matter with books?’, Configurations, vol. 11 no. 3, pp. 277-303.

Horbart, S 2000, Information ages, The Johns Hopkins University Press, New York.

Jones, A 2002, The book of nature and the nature of the book, David Finkelstein and Alistair McCleery, London.

Kipphan, H 2001, Handbook of print media: technologies and production methods, Springer, London.

Porter, R 2009, Revolution in history, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Middle Eastern Revolutions, Causes and Outcomes

Introduction

This research paper will discuss the reasons and consequences of the revolutions that took place in the Middle East. The paper will also discuss some of the solutions to these revolutions. For many years, the Arab world has been living under oppressive dictatorships that made their lives difficult. These revolutions began in the year 2010, with thousands of people coming out to support them (McMurray, 2013). However, the people of the Arab world have risen up, to change the situation and restore democracy in their countries. Countries that took part in the revolution include Syria, Egypt, Libya and Yemen (Arab World Uprisings, 2012).

The reasons behind these revolutions

Due to many years of dictatorship in these countries, the economic environment was not conducive to attract investors; therefore many young people had no jobs. The number of young people who were unemployed went up, making university graduates drive taxis to make their living (Behr & Aaltola, 2011). Most of those involved in the revolution were young people who had no jobs to support their families. The economies of these countries would have improved under a credible and competent government. However, the aging dictatorship had run out of ideas to rule their countries, therefore forcing the Arab people to support these revolutions.

Corruption in these countries had made life difficult since it accelerated economic hardships. For example, the government of Egypt had collaborated with business elites to control the country’s resources without the knowledge of its citizens (Asseburge, 2012). In Tunisia, it was impossible to invest in the country without paying a large sum of money to the ruling family.

Consequences of these revolutions

The unrest in the Middle East had a negative impact on the prices of oil in many countries. The Economist admits that the five global recessions witnessed have been triggered by these revolutions. The rise in oil prices led to a rise in commodity prices, especially on food in developing countries (Watenpaugh, 2006).The second economic impact of rising oil prices due to the unrest is that investors lost confidence, therefore there was a negative impact on capital spending. The revolution led to high levels of crime during the political transition, which resulted in worsening of political and economic turmoil in these countries (McMurray, 2013). During the revolutions, many people lost their lives in public demonstrations, while others were wounded or detained by police.

Solutions to the Middle East Revolutions

There are many actions that can be taken by the government and people to stop the revolutions. Leaders should be democratic by ensuring that there are free and fair elections (Dalacoura, 2012). Moreover, every person, especially those in authority, should accept the outcomes of the election and work together to improve the living standards of the people. The government should change the current system to enhance freedom and equal distribution of resources so that people can have a better life. For example, leaders have a responsibility to ensure that they are protected by the law and are allowed to exercise their freedom (Lynch, 2013).

Conclusion

My selection has shown the world that people have the right to be ruled in the right way, and that power is in the hands of the people. The social unrest in the Middle East has been aimed at overthrowing dictators that have ruled for decades. The Arab uprisings have been followed by various interconnected occurrences. For example, in Egypt and Tunisia mass civic revolutions led to the overthrowing of dictators. In some countries, the revolutions led to civil wars that required interventions from the military. The best solution is for leaders to stop being dictators and ensure that the rule of law prevails.

References

Arab World Uprisings: A Country-by-Country Look-Interactive Feature (2012). The New York Times. Web.

Asseburge, M. (2012). Web.

Behr, T., & Aaltola, M. (2011). The Arab Uprising Causes, Prospects and Implications. Web.

Dalacoura, K. (2012). The 2011 Uprisings in the Arab Middle East: Political Change and Geopolitical Implications. Web.

Lynch, M. (2013). The Arab Uprising: The Unfinished Revolutions of the New Middle East. New York: Public Affairs.

McMurray, D. A. (2013). The Arab Revolts: Dispatches on Militant Democracy in the Middle East. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Watenpaugh, K. D. (2006). Being Modern in the Middle East: Revolution, Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Arab Middle Class. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Iranian Revolution and the Gulf States

Introduction

Iranian Revolution took place in the year 1979. It was a revolution which was aimed at eliminating the monarchy that had been in rule for a long period. Several countries have carried out revolutions in the past. Revolutions in most countries usually result from political reasons in a country.

The Iranian Revolution was one of the few that have been successful in the past. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was very famous. This is because it saw the overthrowing of the Iran monarchy that was in power and replaced it with the Islamic republic. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was the leader of the monarch.

On the other hand, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was the leader of Islam. Also, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini led the revolution. The revolution had an impact on the Arabian States and their relationship with Iran due to the links that they had even before (Molavi, n. d.).

Scope of the Research

The Iranian Revolution became one of the most famous revolutions in the world because it was successful. Most of the previous revolutions that took place failed. The impacts of most of these revolutions were slowing down the economic growth and eruption of war within the country.

The Iranian Revolution had some impacts, especially on the Persian states. Iran had good relations with Persian states especially in economic terms due to their commonality in oil production. Iran shipped its oil through the Gulf States. After the revolution, these relations changed.

It led to the eruption of security tensions between the nations. The main scope of this paper is to discuss how the Iranian Revolution changed the security and the religious relationship of the Persian states with Iran (Kamrava, 2011).

Effects of the Iranian revolution on the religious relationship between Iran and the Gulf states

Khomeini is a key figure, who led the revolution of Iran in the year 1979. At the time, there was so much involvement of American Imperialism in the Gulf States. There have been two religious groups that have been conflicting since the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Khomeini, who was the leader of the revolution, was a member of the Shiite Islam religion.

The Gulf States and most notably Saudi Arabia believed in the Sunni Islamic religion. Religion is an important factor in the analysis of the relationship between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It plays a key role in the policies of Iran towards Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabians have very strong religious believes. The residents of Saudi are predominantly Islam.

The revolution that took place in Iran increased the involvement of Iran in Saudi Arabia. Iran was criticizing the Saudi Arabian relationship with the US. This would weaken the monarchy of Saudi Arabia, which was Islamic based. Therefore, the religious relationship between Iran and Saudi Arabia was largely affected after the Iranian revolution.

It became weakened and became increased the tensions (Cordesman, Alsis & Allison, 2011). Khomeini, the Shiite believer and the leader of Iran, openly and publicly opposed the Sunni Islam religion that was dominant in Saudi Arabia. This varied beliefs and the open criticism of the Saudi religion by Khomeini created tensions between the two religions.

The tension has been live until recent times. There has been so much suspicion and uncertainty between Iran and Saudi Arabia as a result of their different religious beliefs. The tensions came after the Iranian Revolution. This was a period when Khomeini was crowned as a leader of Iran. He openly criticized the legitimacy of religion by the Saudi Arabians (Fürtig, 2002).

The tension achieved a new front when the Sunni of Saudi Arabia attempted to bring down the al Hussein shrine. Al Hussein was one of the most prominent leaders of the Shiite religion. Attempts by the Sunni to bring down that shrine are said to be the source of the modern of tensions. The tensions continued till the death of Khomeini in the year 1989 and even after his death.

There have always been tensions between the two nations over the religious issues that started as a result of the Iranian revolution. It is the same religious conflicts that partly contributed to the start of the war between Iran and Iraq (Wagner, 2010). In Kuwait and Dubai, most people are of the Sunni Islamic religion.

However, there are so many Iranians who live in this country. Some of the Iranians who live in these countries are believers of the Shiite Islamic religion. When the revolution in Iran took place, and the Shiite took over the rule, Khomeini was determined to make Islamic rule strong overseas.

As a result, the governments of Kuwait and Dubai became concerned that the Iranians in their country would incite a similar revolution like the one that took place in Iran. This raised religious tensions in these countries too. There were speculations that there were Shiite militants in the countries who had been organized by Khomeini. This caused tension among the two opposing religious groups in these Gulf States (Phillips 1979).

In Bahrain, the Iranian Revolution was welcomed by the officials of the Shiite religion. They supported the victory of the Iranian Revolution. Bahrain is an Islamic country in which most people are of the Shiite religion. Most of these Shiites are Iranians. The Shiites in Bahrain were too poor, and they did not have a say in government institutions of the country.

After the Iranian Revolution and the victory the revolution achieved, the Shiites in Bahrain thought that it was a remarkable achievement and that they also needed equal representation in the government. The Bahrain government leaders were and were in support of the Iraqi government during the Iran-Iraq war.

The Shiite in Bahrain started holding demonstrations after the Iranian revolution. The demonstrations were inspired by the religious relations between Iran and the Bahrain Shiite. This led to high tensions in Bahrain between the Sunni and Shiite. Bahrain divided into two groups.

One group supported the Iranian Revolution and wanted to have a similar revolution in their country. The other group supported the existing Bahrain government but wanted reforms to improve their positions in the government. The leader of the Shiite was Ayatollah Saddik Ruhani (Louër, 2008).

The security relationship between the Arabian Gulf and Iran post-Iran Revolution

As it has been stated earlier, the Iranian Revolution was a revolution that was aimed to replace the Shah monarch and was led by Khomeini who was a Shiite believer. There were various security concerns between some of the Gulf States and Iran that now became an Islamic republic after the revolution.

They led to the emergence of the war between Iran and Iraq. The most notable security concern between the two regions after the Iranian revolution was the war that erupted between Iraq and Iran (Kechichian, 2001). However, there were other security issues that will be discussed in this section of the paper.

When Khomeini succeeded in leading one of the revolutions that turned out to be famous in the world, overthrowing the Shah Monarch and replacing it with the Islamic republic rule, he declared that he had intentions to overthrow the monarchs in the Gulf States. He also staged an attack on all the U.S. territories and facilities in the Gulf States. Khomeini was particularly negative towards the western countries and particularly the U.S.

When he took over power in Iran there was an increased tension among the Muslims all over the world as well as in America (Nosotro, 2003). The Islamic rule in the wake of Khomeini leadership post-Iran Revolution started to take center stage across Middle East countries. The effects could be felt outside the region, as well as the whole world.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein who was a Sunni launched an attack on Iran. This led to the Iraqi – Iran war in the year 1980. It later turned out to be the Gulf war and was definitive of the security relations that Iran and the Gulf states were to have through the years of the 1980s.

Iraq attack on Iran influenced the other Gulf States to join in support of Iraq. Saudi Arabia particularly splashed out billions of dollars to back up Iraq in the attack. It even increased the oil production to sustain itself in funding the attack. Apart from increasing the funds to support the attack on Iran, Saudi Arabia also increased the oil production to weaken the Iranian capability of funding its troops and attacks to counter the Iraqis attack (Nosotro, 2003).

Before the revolution, there was a fall out between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. However, Iran was seen as a threat to Saudi Arabia more than Iraq since it was going to threaten the survival of Saudi Arabia in the Gulf region. Other Arabian Gulf states joined to support Iraq. Some countries, which joined include Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain.

Security relations in the Persian Gulf region and Iran continued to fall out. This is because Iran sent aircraft across the Gulf to pose threats to any country that provided any form of support to Iraq. The involvement of the other Gulf countries increased when Iran attacked the oil tankers of the Gulf nations. Iraq was the one who first attacked the oil export terminal.

In counter to the attack that Iraq made on the Iran oil export terminal, Iran attacked the oil tankers of the Gulf nations. This angered those nations that included Saudi Arabia and Kuwait among others. These attacks further weakened the security relations between the Persian Gulf States and Iran since all the Gulf States directed their attack on Iran.

The U.S. also got involved in the war whereby it supported Kuwait in the attack of Iran tankers (January 2008). Another incident that increased security tensions in the Gulf region was the Hajj Incident that took place in the year 1987.

The incident that took place outside the Grand Mosque in Mecca took away the lives of about 400 pilgrims. Two-thirds of the pilgrims were Iranians. It was a clash between demonstrators and the Saudi Arabian law agencies. As a result of that incident, Saudi Arabia put regulations on the activities that normally take place at the pilgrimage.

This further indicated the poor security relationship between Iran and the Gulf States. The aftermath of the incident was the revenge of Iran by attacking the Saudi diplomats (Moaddel, 1993).

Discussion

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini is the individual who was on the forefront during the Iranian Revolution of 1979. He led to the replacement of the Monarch that was led by Shah. The revolution marked the start of the shift in the relationship between Iran and the Gulf States.

Many authors have done numerous researches and have written articles regarding the Iranian Revolution. Most of these writers have mostly concentrated their work on the Gulf war. There are also various authors who have written on the relationship between Iran and America after the revolution. This paper has gone a step further to address the religious relations of Iran and the Gulf states after the revolution.

This revolution is one of the main aspects that led to the emergence of the Gulf war (Naghshpour, 2011). The paper has also addressed several security concerns, which have previously been overlooked by most writers. It has given an overview of the Hajj Incident that took place at Mecca in the year 1987.

It is an incident that worsened the already delicate security between Iran and the Gulf States. Also, when the Sunni attempted to destroy the al-Hussein shrine, this worsened the security tensions. The tensions were eased at some point in the year 1988 when Iran accepted the UN resolution, but it erupted again in 1990.

Analysis

The breakdown of security and region relations between Iran and the Gulf states had several implications on the involved nations. The revolution led to the attack of Iran by Iraq. This is after Iraq suspected that the same revolution could happen in their country. It raised the tension between two Islamic religious versions, the Shiite and the Sunni, which was the main causes of the fear developed by the Iraq President Saddam Hussein.

It is this attack by Iraq on Iran that led to the emergence of the gulf war. Gulf nations backed Iraq to attack Iran, and they provided financial support to Iraq to enable the attack. These attacks had some impact on the economy of the nations since there were several attacks on the oil tankers which meant losses. The price of oil also went down during those years further slowing down the economy of the nations.

Conclusion

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 marked a turning point in the relationship between the Gulf States and Iran. Most Arabian Gulf states turned against the Islamic rule that came to being after the overthrow of Shah Monarch rule. The events led to the emergence of the Gulf war in which the United States also intervened at some point.

In their intervention, America supported the Gulf States due to the fear that the development of the Islamic rule will increase the chances of terrorist attacks on them. The tensions continued for up to a decade. There were several other security concerns which occurred in between the war period, for instance, the Hajj Incident that took place in Mecca among other incidents.

References

Cordesman, A. H., Alsis, P. & Allison, M. (2011). US and Iranian Strategic Competition in the Gulf States and Yemen. Web.

Fürtig, H. (2002). Iran’s rivalry with Saudi Arabia between the Gulf wars. Reading: Ithaca Press.

January, B. (2008). The Iranian Revolution. Minneapolis, MN: Twenty-First Century Books.

Kamrava, M. (2011). The international politics of the Persian Gulf. Syracuse, N.Y: Syracuse University Press.

Kechichian, J. A. (2001). Iran, Iraq and the Arab Gulf States. New York, NY, u.a.: Palgrave.

Louër, L. (2008). Transnational Shia politics: Religious and political networks in the Gulf. New York: Columbia University Press.

Moaddel, M. (1993). Class, politics, and ideology in the Iranian revolution. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

Molavi, A. (n. d.). . The Iran Primer. Web.

Naghshpour, S. (2011). Revolutionary Iran and the United States: Low-intensity conflict in the Persian Gulf. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgaate Pub. Co.

Nosotro, R. (2003). Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini: 1900-1989 Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary. Web.

Phillips, J. (1979). The Iranian Revolution: Long- Term Implications. Web.

Wagner, H. L. (2010). The Iranian Revolution. New York: Chelsea House.