John Womack was born in 1937 and is a renowned historian and economist. His publications have focused majorly on Mexico, Emiliano Zapata, and the Mexican Revolution of 1910 to 1921. As a historian, it can be expected that his works are founded on verifiable historical facts. His book titled Zapata and the Mexican Revolution is one of the classic writing, which has led to a major shift in modern Mexican historiography as argued by Vaughan (2018). The book discusses the origins of the Mexican Revolution and the role played by critical figures, including Emiliano Zapata. He bases his arguments on the premise that the revolution was caused by people who refused to move from their fatherland and opted to fight against anyone who tried to force them to relocate.
The premise of his book can be visible from the preface where an introduction to the Mexican evolution is presented. Wommack (1968) states that “come hell, high water, agitators from the outside, or report of greener pastures elsewhere, they insisted on staying in the villages and little towns… (p. ix). The role of Zapata dominates the discussion of the revolution since, upon his death, the Morelos revolutionaries became recognized as a legitimate body in Mexico.
A brief background to the life of Emiliano Zapata reveals why he was such an important figure. Womack (1968) acknowledges that he had proven capable of leading the revolution, traits that were passed on to him by his parents. With the backing of the people, Zapata was able to accomplish a feat that not many would have. The historical events described in the book are largely accurate. Therefore, it can be argued that the book succeeds in one key aspect: outlining the successes of the key figure in the revolution.
Reaction
The book Zapata and the Mexican Revolution can be described as a biographical narrative exploring the life and history of both Emiliano Zapata and the Mexican revolution. Womack (1968) seeks to outline the events leading to and those towards the end of the revolution. He insinuates that Zapata is the embodiment of the spirit and resoluteness of the Morelos. The book is also written casually despite paying attention to the key events. The primary theme is the revolution and the role of Zapata as the author illustrates that the story of one would not be complete without the other.
The book is structured around eleven chapters, excluding the prologue, epilogue, and appendixes. Each of the chapters describes the major events in a sequence from the election of a governor by President Diaz to the inheritance of Morelos by Zapatistas. Other historical facts, including army campaigns, disavowing of the constitutionalists, and the resistance reforms have all been presented. A closer examination of the book hardly reveals any biases on the part of the author, majorly because all ideas are backed by historical facts. However, the only aspect that can be questioned is whether the refusal to move is the sole reason for the emergence of the revolution.
The doubts regarding such an opinion can be cleared by reading through the history of the revolution and providing updates from new archaeological and archival findings. Some of the earlier critiques of Womack (1968) may have expressed that the peasants were not unwilling to move as the several voting patterns on the agenda reveal.
The book is dominated by the themes of the revolution and Zapata. Therefore, it fails to address other issues such as gender. Very few instances of female mentions can be found in the book, which makes it appear that the revolution was conducted by men. However, there are a few instances that hint at how women were treated by the army officers. Mrs. King is an example of such an incident because the army refuses to return bathtubs that belonged to her even after she protested.
Regarding the strengths and weaknesses, it is important to acknowledge that the book makes critical contributions toward understanding the history of Mexico and Latin America. Additionally, Womack (1968) is keen on using historical facts with accurate dates and events, which is another strength of the publication. The major weakness is the book’s premise regarding the sole cause of the revolution because it is highly debatable. In other words, there can be arguments against the thesis that the peasants fought because they did not want to move from their ancestral lands. Additionally, the book does not address gender issues and the plight of women during the revolution.
Relevance
The Mexican Revolution is one of the most historically significant events in Latin America. The relevance of the book can be perceived by its contribution to the history of Latin America. As mentioned earlier, scholars such as Vaughan (2018) believe that Womack has changed how the history of the Mexican Revolution is written. Therefore, Womack (1968) has a special place in surveying Latin America and it is useful because of its ability to highlight the major events of the revolution. The major lesson from the book is that the history of a community defines who they are and the political occurrences. Additionally, effective leadership in political scenarios is the key to the attainment of favorable outcomes.
References
Vaughan, M. (2018). Mexico, 1940–1968 and beyond: Perfect dictatorship? Dictablanda? or PRI state hegemony? Latin American Research Review, 53(1), 167-176. Web.
Womack, J. (1968). Zapata and the Mexican Revolution. Vintage Books.
Shakespeare’s plays have inspired many outstanding writers, who have produced numerous fantastic works. One of such works is Shakespeare’s Universality: Here’s Fine Revolution by Kiernan Ryan. The author claims that Shakespeare’s plays can be interpreted from the egalitarian standpoint, i.e. such promoting the recognition of fundamental human equality from birth to death. However, he views Timon of Athens is best fitting for understanding the Shakespearean vision of his time and reality, which, in fact, was prophetic. Nevertheless, this essay will try to persuade you that it is The Tempest that best expresses “an egalitarian standpoint that is still in advance of our time” (Ryan 32).
The essay will set the scene for investigating the primary themes raised by Shakespeare in The Tempest. Its primary idea is to prove that it is the theme of judging colonialism that can be deployed for understanding egalitarianism. Moreover, additional attention will be paid to the relationships between parents and children and emotions as the essential condition of humanity in order to highlight that all people, in fact, are the same.
That said, the paper will pay specific attention to political, social, and spiritual egalitarianism and draw the connection with Shakespeare’s play. Finally, this essay will try to persuade that the startling uniqueness of mind highlighted in the struggle to find the balance between “utopian possibility and dystopian reality” (Ryan 61) is what made it possible to render the uncertainties of our world in The Tempest and turned the play into a prognostic masterpiece. Even though it is one of the strangest plays written by Shakespeare, it is still relevant and up-to-the-minute.
“Your tale, sir, would cure deafness” (Shakespeare 13)
Reading Shakespeare is always a special experience because we do not see a separately taken person put in his or her time and environment. Instead, we see the unique condition of common humanity, which can be as well interpreted in the spiritual sphere, the field of emotions, which highlights that people are all the same (Mousley 173). They have the same fears. They feel the same emotions. They go down the same path of change and development throughout their lives. These things never alter. The only condition that changes is the picture on the background and the day on the calendar.
Nowadays, egalitarianism, the promotion of fundamental equality of people without regard to race, gender or religion, is a popular trend. Its traces can be seen everywhere because the society operates under constantly drawing the lines between equalities and inequalities (Bristol 56). The states’ policies and the news headings are clamoring about equal rights. However, reality is always different from what is written on the paper.
Here is when we might want to recall Shakespeare and his The Tempest, a beautiful combination of mystical knowledge, the origins of colonization, and the principles of social justice and freedom. The justification for mentioning it is that the work represents the foundations of egalitarianism, even though it is not mentioned in the play itself.
The brightest example of Shakespeare’s egalitarian standpoint in The Tempest is the memories of Gonzalo, who is the counselor of Prospero. He recollects the beauty of the island, the green grass, the blue waters, and the salty sea (Shakespeare, 44-45).
The picture looks perfect. However, there is one aggravating detail in his story – Gonzalo was kept as a prisoner on this island. He had not had an opportunity to enjoy the nature to the maximum extent. Together with these details, he points to the people, who imprisoned him, Sebastian and Alonso. He is astonished by the fact that even though they have the chance to rejoice the beauty of nature, they choose to mock Gonzalo’s mood and the love of the environment.
Is it not a true demonstration of the clash of the utopian dream with the dystopian reality? First, he highlights that the conditions on this island are perfect for establishing equality because the rich and the poor would be the same as well as the black and the white. Along with it, he dreams of governing the state, in which he would make no distinction between people and treat everyone equally – “Would I admit: no name of magistrate; / Letters should not be known: riches, poverty / … none” (Shakespeare 51). However, at the same time, he is imprisoned. So, there are people, who decide what to do with his life, the hierarchy.
This scene was written more than four centuries ago. Regardless of this fact, it is still in advance of the time we all live in because people did not change. Some of them are stuck in reality and live their lives as they are told to having no time and desire to enjoy the beauty around them or daydream about making the world a better place to live. At the same time, there are those, who are similar to Gonzalo, the dreamers.
Even living under the conditions of strict hierarchy, they do not forget about their nature and seek connection with the origins (Gregor 24). They might not have enough power to change the world at the larger scale, but they make their personal environment bright and positive.
Furthermore, the monologue of Gonzalo points to one simple truth: as long as the sovereignty exists, there is not a slightest chance to build the civilization, in which all people would be treated equally. What Shakespeare means under sovereignty is the absolute authority and power. It might be implemented at different levels from home relationships to international relations. The primary detail here is that sovereignty, i.e. authority, implies inequality because those, who have power, inevitably desire to obtain more resources, wealth, influence, etc., absolutely forgetting about human dignity and other spiritual values.
There are several ways to draw the connection between the Gonzalo’s monologue about sovereignty and the further historical events proving that Shakespeare’s The Tempest was prognostic. Of course, he had written his play keeping in mind absolute monarchies of that time and the reign of one monarch. Even though the number of influential states increased over time, there is one thing that remained unchanged.
It is as follows: what people witnessed in the course of the further historical development and what we see today is that those, who have significant authority and power, deploy it to become even more powerful at the expense of other people’s lives and welfare.
In addition to hierarchy, The Tempest raises the themes of slavery and tyranny touching upon the very nature of egalitarianism. The story of Gonzalo and Sebastian and Alonso mocking him can, in fact, be interpreted in the context of tyranny. It is, for the most part, the example of emotional tyranny, but still the fact remains. The theme of slavery is raised pointing to the fact that Prospero has two slaves and mentioning that Caliban is a slave himself – “Caliban, whom now I [Prospero] keep in service” (Shakespeare 24).
These themes are connected to the theme of colonialism. It is understood from the broader context because we realize that the ship, which had escaped the storm, was returning from some distant lands, i.e. Africa, to Italy, and only having the historical background contributes to becoming aware of the depiction of the Old and the New Worlds in the play (Kastan 172). The instants of slavery as well as keeping Gonzalo imprisoned are drawn as the consequences of colonialism.
That said, the play might have been written as the warning of potential outcomes of choosing to take over other people’s land. In fact, taking a closer look at the further historical development of this issue, Shakespeare was a prophet because he depicted what would happen to those, who would be ruled by colonizers. At the same time, it is possible to interpret colonialism as the manifestation of tyranny. So, what is depicted in the play is the negative influence of tyranny on emotional as well as economic, social, and physical wellbeing of those oppressed.
Except for the emotional tyranny over Gonzalo when he was laughed at because of his love of nature, there is also the instant of emotional tyranny in the family. The brightest example is Prospero and Miranda, a father and a daughter (Gregor 22). The primary idea here is that Shakespeare stresses on the fact that parents often think that they have the right to bring up their children without taking into consideration the desires of their kids.
Sometimes, they forget that their children have grown up and keep on interfering with their lives. Here, we see the same situation with Prospero and Miranda. He is powerful and mighty, so, has the right to decide what is better for his daughter. Miranda, on the other hand, does not have enough authority to oppose him. The cases of Miranda and Gonzalo and their tyrants are the instances of social and spiritual egalitarianism.
The social aspect of it is that people are not equal in their access to resources such as wealth and, to a particular extent, freedom. As of the spiritual dimension of egalitarianism, it implies that people should be equal in their right to choose what they want to do with their lives, and everyone else should acknowledge this right. However, what we see nowadays is that this right is ignored, and prejudice, not equality rule the society.
Egalitarianism can be viewed not only from the perspective of treating other people equally but also from the standpoint that every person has a lot of commonalities. For example, no one can control unexpected feelings or the inner changes throughout one’s life. The instance of striking love is the case of Miranda and Ferdinand, the Prince of Naples, who later decide to marry (Shakespeare 35).
Because Ferdinand is the son of one of Prospero’s enemies, Alonso, the fact that his daughter is in love with the prince, changes Prospero to the better because he finally forgives Ferdinand’s father. The Tempest is also the story of finding the way and inner strengths to forgiveness and emotional transformation. Shakespeare demonstrates that no matter what an individual is and what are his or her motivations in life, sometimes there are conditions that change the internal world of a person, and such changes are usually momentous and instantaneous.
Finally, The Tempest detects the obscurities of the world we all live in and its poverties. Even though it was written four hundred years ago, it highlights the fact that people are interested only in their own welfare and authority. Moreover, the states strive for obtaining more powerful positions in the global arena that they already have and are ready to fight for it ignoring one simple detail – the cost of similar struggles is the human life, which is impossible to bring back. That is why, it is the most valuable resource. It is the human life that should be preserved and it the quality of life that should be upgraded, not the acres of land, because these are the people, who make up the state and might contribute to the state’s prosperity.
Conclusion
In the conclusion, it should be said that it is The Tempest that represents the Shakespeare’s egalitarian standpoint. Bearing in mind that egalitarianism is the acknowledgment and promotion of human dignity and fundamental rights to equality granted to all human beings, it can be mentioned that there are several dimensions of this phenomenon such as political, social, spiritual, etc. The most significant justification for making the initial statement is that all forms of egalitarianism mentioned above are present or implicated in the text of the play to a particular extent.
What is even more paramount, The Tempest is still relevant today, so, everything that was written more than four centuries ago is still applicable as if it were produced yesterday. This simple fact turns Shakespeare into a prophet because this play is prognostic.
The representation of the political egalitarianism is the most significant and the brightest throughout the story. It is seen in the growing popularity of colonialism, highlighting the existence of slavery, and tyranny. As of the social aspect of egalitarianism, it can be found in the inequality of access to wealth and power. Again, it is seen in the very fact of slavery and speculation on the nature of sovereignty and the barriers to happy society dwelling in equality.
Finally, the spiritual dimension of egalitarianism is depicted in the relationships in the family and other instances of emotional tyranny. In addition to it, this type of egalitarianism can be interpreted in the manner of writing. What is meant by this statement is the unique style of Shakespeare hinting that all people are the same because they have the same fears and feelings.
This simple fact can be deployed for highlighting the very nature of egalitarianism and answering the question: if people have the same feelings, does not it mean that they are the same, so, they should be treated in an equal way and their right to equality should be guaranteed? For these reasons, I am strongly inclined to believe that The Tempest should be put to the center of Shakespeare’s work because it is the startling masterpiece that best expresses “an egalitarian standpoint that is still in advance of our time” (Ryan 32).
Works Cited
Bristol, Michael D. Shakespeare’s America, America’s Shakespeare. New York, New York: Routledge, 2014. Print.
Gregor, Keith. Shakespeare and Tyranny: Regimes of Reading in Europe and Beyond. Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom: Cambridge Scholar Publishing, 2014. Print.
Kastan, David Scott. Shakespeare After Theory. New York, New York: Routledge, 2013. Print.
The Market Revolution played a critical towards transforming the history of the United States. This revolution was concentrated in every urban region. The Market Revolution began in 1793. The revolution reshaped the country’s economic practices and immigration patterns. It also changed the manner in which the country consumed different forms of labor1. The country’s economic activities became obsolete especially after the invention of new communication and transportation techniques. Benjamin Carp also believes that the period paved way for the famous Industrial Revolution. The Market Revolution encouraged the people to embrace new methods of production. The revolution supported the needs of many cities in the north. This development made these cities powerful than ever before. The Market Revolution encouraged the American government to use better methods of transportation. This summary describes how the Market Revolution changed the history of the United States completely2. The proposed paper will examine the issues surrounding the Market Revolution. The paper will also analyze how the revolution affected the economy of every city in America. The paper discusses the impacts of the revolution on the lives of many urban residents throughout the 19th century.
Preliminary Thesis Statement
The Market Revolution of the early 19th century affected the lives of many urban residents while at the same time reshaping the economic positions of many cities across the United States. According to historians, the revolution changed the lives of many citizens in different cities. For instance, the country’s urban population began to grow at an unprecedented rate. Many people left their homes during the period. The people were searching for better opportunities. The country recorded a new wave of immigration. Many people were migrating from every corner of the globe. Every citizen in America was working hard in order to improve his or her lifestyle3. The increasing number of citizens in different American cities resulted in new economic activities. Many cities in the north were ready to embrace new methods of consumption and production4. This practice was critical towards changing the economic power of many American cities.
Study Approach
The proposed paper will be useful towards analyzing the issues associated with different American cities throughout the 19th century. The study will use both primary and secondary sources in order to understand the Market Revolution much better. The sources will offer numerous ideas and historical facts for the paper. The paper will use two primary sources. These sources include “Cumberland Road Debates of March 1806” and “The First Telegraph Message, 24 May 1844” by John McDonough. The main objective of the final paper is to describe how the Market Revolution of the 19th century played a significant role towards reshaping the history of different American cities. The paper will also focus on the experiences of many urban residents. The final paper will offer meaningful arguments in order to understand the history of different American cities.
Literature Review
The Market Revolution was in full force throughout the nineteenth century. The revolution encouraged more people to leave their societies. This development played a major role towards changing the economic patterns of many cities. For instance, new infrastructures and industries emerged. These industries absorbed many immigrants from different parts of the globe. The rich invented new methods of production5. The Industrial Revolution made it easier for the United States to produce new goods and services. This practice also discouraged the importation of goods from different European countries. The United States embraced the concept of Domestic Manufacturing (DM) in order to support its economy. New inventions were evident in different parts of the country.
On the other hand, the rich members of the society created new residences for themselves6. The rich began to hire house-cleaners and chauffeurs. They constructed new mansions and amenities. According to many historians, the rich benefited the most of the above revolution. Most of the immigrants were unable to have better living conditions. It was mandatory for these immigrants to offer cheap labor to the rich. This development created more problems thus forcing the people to fight for their rights and freedoms. The poor wanted to get new opportunities in the country. They also wanted to have better living conditions. This fact explains why the War of 1812 was inevitable.
As mentioned earlier, the Market Revolution was essential towards reshaping every American city. This development also led to the establishment of new social classes7. The practice was critical because it led to the creation of the middle class. The new middle class supported different economic practices in the country. New economic practices became evident between many businesspeople and farmers. Such practices were relevant towards supporting the economy of the United States8.
Historians have also identified the evils associated with these urban regions. For instance, new adversities such as poverty, inequality, and crime became part of these cities. Many people began to practice crime in an attempt to support themselves. The people produced more wastes thus contaminating their surrounding environments. New diseases and infections emerged in different cities. Such infections claimed the lives of many citizens9. The above problems forced the people to fight for their rights. During the same period, the gap between the affluent members of the society and the poor widened. The society expected the poor to work hard in order to join the middle class.
Many cities in the south resisted most of the ideas associated with the Market Revolution. Many people in these southern cities believed strongly in their traditional institutions. Most of cities in the north embraced better methods of production. This strategy was critical towards supporting the economic position of every city10. It is agreeable that the Market Revolution made the United States a leading player in the global economy. The efforts of many settlers and economists were critical towards increasing the United States’ power and wealth11.
Concluding Remarks
The final paper will use quality primary and secondary sources to support the suggested topic. The paper will also outline the implications of the Market Revolution on the lives of many Americans. The essay will also identify the benefits and disadvantages of the Market Revolution. The discussion will explain how different individuals managed to achieve their goals. The paper will also outline the major evils associated with different urban settlements across the country. The identified sources will be critical towards supporting the arguments in the paper. The final paper will be a useful source of historical information.
Bibliography
Anbinder, Tyler. “From Famine to Five Points: Lord Lansdowne’s Irish Tenants Encounter North America’s Most Notorious Slum.” American Historical Review 107 (2002): 351-387.
Carp, Benjamin. Rebels Rising: Cities and the American Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Chudacoff , Howard P., and Smith, Judith. The Evolution of American Urban Society. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2005.
Hunter, Tera. “Reconstruction and the Meanings of Freedom.” In To ‘Joy My Freedom: Southern Black Women’s Lives and Labors after the Civil War, edited by Tera Hunter, 22-43. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.
Stansell, Christine. “Female Work and Poverty.” In City of Women: Sex and Class in New York: 1789-1860, edited by Christine Stansell, 3-18. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986.
Footnotes
1 Benjamin Carp, Rebels Rising: Cities and the American Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 76.
2 Howard P. Chudacoff and Judith Smith, The Evolution of American Urban Society (Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2005), 12.
3 Tera Hunter, “Reconstruction and the Meanings of Freedom,” in To ‘Joy My Freedom: Southern Black Women’s Lives and Labors after the Civil War, edited by Tera Hunter (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 31.
4 Benjamin Carp, Rebels Rising: Cities and the American Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 76.
5 Tera Hunter, “Reconstruction and the Meanings of Freedom,” in To ‘Joy My Freedom: Southern Black Women’s Lives and Labors after the Civil War, edited by Tera Hunter (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 31.
6 Hunter, “Meanings of Freedom,” 35.
7 Christine Stansell, “Female Work and Poverty,” in City of Women: Sex and Class in New York: 1789-1860, edited by Christine Stansell (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986), 12.
8 Stansell, “Female Work,” 13.
9 Howard P. Chudacoff and Judith Smith, The Evolution of American Urban Society (Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2005), 13.
10 Tyler Anbinder, “From Famine to Five Points: Lord Lansdowne’s Irish Tenants Encounter North America’s Most Notorious Slum,” American Historical Review 107 (2002): 367.
The Yemeni revolution started as a continuation of a series of other Middle East revolutions that ousted the Tunisian and Egyptian presidents. However, the Yemeni revolution started soon after the Tunisian revolution, and almost at the same time as the Egyptian revolution. This revolution brought a lot of bloodshed and violence as the government clashed with demonstrators, who demanded that the country’s former president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, step down. During the uprising, the government shot many demonstrators and before long, the conflict became armed. Nonetheless, Saleh’s government collapsed under the uprising and a peaceful handover of power occurred (Arabia 1).
Many factors led to the success of the Yemeni revolution (key among them being the role of international actors in mediating this conflict). Notably, the role of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was profound in brokering a peace deal because it introduced a transition arrangement that saw the president hand over power to his Vice president. Many western powers, including America, Australia, and Britain, backed this agreement. France, Germany, Japan, and Qatar also contributed to solving the conflict (Akhbar 4).
This paper investigates the motives behind the contribution of foreign powers in solving the Yemeni conflict (plus how these countries managed to do so). Since the conflict displaced thousands of people from their homes and into neighbouring countries (or other areas perceived to be safe within the country), this paper also focuses on explaining the scope and implications of the humanitarian crisis that characterised the conflict. Finally, this paper explores the possible ramifications of the Yemeni conflict and other countries that hosted Yemeni refugees.
Why Foreign Countries intervened in Yemen
Violence and Human Right Violations
Following the bloodshed and killing of Yemeni protesters, the International community had to intervene in the Yemeni revolution. This revolution did not initially start as a demonstration against the president and his government, but rather, a demonstration against widespread corruption, unemployment, and the lack of social justice in the country (Akhbar 4). However, when the government started attacking and arresting protesters, the conflict soon transitioned to be a call for regime change. The widespread violence that occurred in several parts of the country saw dozens of protestors shot dead by government forces.
This violence raised many concerns in the international community because foreign governments saw the failure of Saleh’s government to respect human rights. In one incident, government forces shot 52 protestors in Sana’a (Arabia 1). Consequently, there were several calls from the international community, including the United Nations (U.N), U.S, and U.K, to stop the violence against protestors. The U.N secretary general, Banki moon, for instance, called on the Yemeni government to stop all hostilities against the protestors and seek a political solution with the opposition (Akhbar 5).
A planned assassination against Saleh marked the height of the Yemeni violence because armed militias targeted worship areas and the presidential palace as a strategy to kill the president. An attack on the presidential compound saw the former Yemeni president hospitalised in Saudi Arabia. Opposition groups in Yemeni therefore clashed with government forces in a continuous stream of violence that forced the international community to intervene. The role of the U.S and the Gulf Cooperation Council were most instrumental in solving the conflict.
Terrorism
The war on terror is one issue that frequently surfaced as a cause for concern for international powers who followed Yemen’s conflict. Notably, America was more concerned about the increased threat of terrorism if the former Yemeni President, Saleh, transferred power. America’s concern centred on the fact that a former Al-Qaida mentor wanted Saleh to transfer power to make way for the establishment of a Muslim state (Almasmari 9). This concern prompted one US diplomat to claim that Saleh was possibly the best ally the US would have in Yemen. However, because of the conviction of the Yemeni people to oust Saleh, America changed its position towards Saleh and wanted him to transfer power. Despite the wavering interests of international powers in the Yemeni conflict, the threat of terrorism surfaced as an important concern for the international community.
How Foreign Countries Helped Yemen
The main contribution of the international community in solving the Yemeni conflict stems from the power of the international community to prevail on Saleh to step down. Before the attempted open assassination on Saleh, the international community, led by the Gulf Cooperation Council, tried to persuade Saleh to transfer power to his vice president. Saleh changed his mind about transfering power to his deputy, twice (Sharqieh 1). However, on 23 November 2011, Saleh travelled to Saudi Arabia and signed a western-backed legal document, developed by the Gulf Cooperation Council, which required him to transfer power to his deputy. Foreign countries were behind the transfer of power, which ended the Yemeni conflict.
Besides the open contribution of foreign powers to broker a peace deal in Yemen, foreign nations also independently contributed to the prevention of further violence in Yemen. For example, Britain approved an arms export ban on Yemen to prevent further escalation of attacks on Yemeni people (Sharqieh 1). Fears that the arms trade was empowering some groups in Yemen to attack civilians informed Britain’s move. Other foreign powers like Germany and France also contributed to the end of violence in Yemen by condemning the attacks, albeit verbally. Most of these countries closed their embassies in protest to the violence and advised their citizens to leave Yemen, or halt their plans to travel to the country. Through such efforts, the Yemeni government felt the pressure of stopping further attacks on civilians. Sharqieh (1) says that even friendly countries to Yemen, such as, America and Saudi Arabia condemned the Yemeni government for attacking innocent protestors. From the open disapproval of the international community on the crackdown on the Yemeni protestors, Saleh felt pressured to stop all hostilities on his people. These efforts led to the decrease of violence in Yemen.
Refuge Situation
The Yemeni conflict brought a lot of untold human suffering (characterized by death and displacement). Indeed, the conflict displaced thousands of refugees. Some of these refugees fled into neighbouring countries, such as, Saudi Arabia and Oman. The U.N refugee agency estimates that the number of refugees who fled Yemen is more than 2,000 (UN Refugee Agency 1). Complementary statistics from the same agency shows that more than 1,000 asylum seekers fled Yemen, while the number of internally displaced refugees reached 347,000 (UN Refugee Agency 1). Since the conflict ended, only a paltry 6,000 refugees returned to their homes. Thousands more still fear going back to their homes because of internal hostilities by some groups.
Implications of Refugee Situation
Food Insecurity
The implication of having a refugee situation in any country is generally negative. Not only do refugees create a social and economic problem, they may also create a bigger political problem for the countries that host them (Saeed 2). The Yemeni refugee crisis is one such problem because its huge refugee population causes serious social and economic concerns, such as, food insecurity. Concisely, the conflict displaced people from their original homelands where they could earn a living (through agriculture, farming, and other activities). Their displacement therefore destabilized their lives because they were unable to feed themselves any more. Instead, these refugees became dependent on international assistance from international bodies, such as, the world food programme. This situation causes serious social and economic instability (Saeed 1).
Political Instability
There are numerous evidences around the world showing how human displacements have created serious political issues, especially in countries that host refugees. The Turkish-Armenian war is one such example because the conflict involved land issues, stemming from human displacements that occurred thousands of years ago (Dadrian 1). Usually, such conflicts happen when the respective governments do not address human displacement issues (or immigration issues) effectively. When such issues persist, they become more complex and difficult to solve.
Following the thousands of people that fled Yemen into neighbouring countries, a political issue may erupt in their host nations because these refugees will become settlers and start a new life in the host nations (if they are not resettled) (Saeed 1). There is therefore a strong potential of conflict in some of the areas these people settle because the host communities may fail to accept them. They may therefore be isolated. In worse situations, new settlements may create a political imbalance in the host countries, further leading to a worsening political problem. Similar situations have happened in other parts of the world. For example, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in Eastern Europe is one such example where two communities have lived in discord, following years of unsolved conflict (stemming from human displacement issues) (Krüger 1).
Conclusion
The ongoing Middle East revolution has shown the importance of the international community in mediating conflict. So far, the roles of foreign relations in mediating the Egyptian, Tunisian, and Yemeni revolutions are profound. This paper shows that foreign powers were instrumental in brokering the Yemeni peace agreement that saw Saleh transfer power to his deputy. Their contribution to the peace process manifested through their open condemnation of human rights violations, propagated by the Saleh government. Spearheaded by GCC, foreign countries were able to convince Saleh to step down from power and have his deputy lead the country.
Besides the violations of human rights, by the former Yemeni government, foreign powers intervened in the Yemeni conflict because they wanted to stop the violence and prevent any spread of terrorism activities. America was most interested about the implications of a change of guard in Yemen (concerning the war on terror).
Nonetheless, as any responsible government should do, it is pertinent for the Yemeni government to solve the humanitarian crisis that plagues the country. Thousands of Yemenis have not gone back to their homes, thereby creating a humanitarian crisis, both within Yemen and in neighbouring countries. Since this issue is unresolved, this paper highlights the possibility of food insecurity and political instability occurring as possible consequences of the conflict. There is therefore a strong need to address some of these issues to prevent any future social or economic problems in Yemen.
Works Cited
Akhbar, English 2012, Mass Yemeni Protest Denounces Violence, Saleh. Web.
Almasmari, Hakim 2012, Revolution in Yemen: We are not finished yet. Web.
Arabia, Noon 2012, Yemen’s Revolution Far From Accomplished. Web.
Dadrian, Vahakn. The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus, London: Berghahn Books, 2003. Print.
Krüger, Heiko. The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: A Legal Analysis, New York: Springer, 2010. Print.
Saeed, Ali 2012, Political Insecurity Drives Yemenis into Displacement and Hunger. Web.
Sharqieh, Ibrahim 2012, Will Yemen’s Peace Agreement Hold? Web.
UN Refugee Agency 2013, 2013 UNHCR Country Operations Profile – Yemen. Web.
Arab nations experienced a wave of tempestuousness triggered by revolutionary ideologies of “reform and regime change.” (Rhodes 38)
The actions ranged from peaceful demonstrations to military confrontation. Most of these Arabic states succeeded in electing new regimes run on a pedestal of transparency and democracy. The nations that experienced the uprising were regimes under totalitarian rule; the uprisings ushered in an era of new political dispensation where dictators and “inefficient regimes” were substituted with elected regimes. (Rhodes 38)
Several political and socio-economic issues contributed to these revolutions and uprisings. This paper seeks to explore these issues and also to highlight on the impacts the revolutions had on the regimes.
Tunisia and Egypt
The genesis of this Arab revolution was in Tunisia, the uprising led to the ouster of Ben Ali’s regime. Corruption and oppression stood out as the primary reasons for regime change in Tunisia. Socio-economic issues played a significant role in fuelling the protests. It began by the death of Bouazizi, a young street vendor who killed himself after harassment by the authority, later the labour unions enjoined the protests thus boosting it. Later on, Ben Ali dissolved the government and fled.
Egyptians, tired of the oppressive monolith regime of Mubarak, staged a civil disobedience that saw unprecedented protests in the country. The regime suppressed individual liberty like free speech. This led to the dissolution of the government and resignation of the president. Currently, Egypt is currently seeking to enact a new constitution.
Libya and Yemen
Libya had been under the firm rule of Gaddaffi who seized power through a coup in 1969; Gaddaffi suspended the constitution and introduced the “green book” for “guidance.” Of Libyans, the regime tolerated no dissident and threatened executions for the opponents.
In February, 2011, Libya witnessed the beginning of a massive unrest after the arrest of a human rights activist in Benghazi. (Hilsum 36)The peaceful demonstrations had been met with brutal force by the regime leading to a full confrontation that pushed Libya to the brink of precipice of a prolonged civil war. The regime offered to institute some reforms which were rejected by the opposition. The revolt later got a boost when several government officials enjoined them. In the final days, Gaddaffi was captured and killed by the opposition who got a lot of military existence from France.. (Pridham 332)
Yemeni citizens demanded reformed socio-economic policies to improve employment, and better their living conditions. The ubiquitous and systemic corruption of the regime became widespread and alarming. (Pridham 332) the protests increased when the Yemeni government proposed to amend the constitution. Later in April, the president agreed to a concession to sign a transition agreement but later spurned it. Eventually, the Vice president took over after Saleh was injured in an attack and this paved way for transition.
Revolution in Syria
Syria had been under a totalitarian rule of Baath party since 1970. In 2002, Bashar al-Assad took power after the death of his father who had ruled the nation for 30 years. The entrance of the younger Assad in 2000 opened up a democratic space, albeit, momentarily. Assad regime has been accused of, “oppression and having tyrannical tendencies.”(Rhodes 38) Freedom of expression was a mirage under him with total government control of the internet and the media. (Parker 97)
The conflict began on January, 2011 with fiddling demonstrations but later erupted into large uprising. The army was used to quell the protest. It is alleged that the military used fire to kill the protesters and this led to the defection of several military personnel who joined the opposition protesters. The protest proceeded to an armed conflict after the regime was accused of immense killing of protesters
Assad has continually accused foreign powers of having a hand in the conflict although the role of religion has been postulated to be a factor as sectarian violence has been witnessed. So far, it is estimated that 55,000 lives have been lost in the strife. Currently, the war (which is still going on) has seen the government lose some of its major installations yet the regime is adamantly stuck in power. (Pridham 332)
Effects of Turkey domestic politics
Turkey is a member of NATO, it is bound by the NATO treaty; it cannot offer any military solution to any side in Syria even if it wanted to. (Octav 213)
The PKK, a military outfit hostile to Turkey and labelled as terrorists by the US, signed a concession with Syria allowing it to operate in the Kurdish regions. This complicated relations between Syria and Turkey. (Octav 213)
Alevis Kurdish tribe favour the left wing in Turkey, this group resented the opposition to Syrian regime by the Turkish government, they viewed the revolution as project of the west.However, the Sunnis in Turkey supported the anti regime revolution (Tachau 112) The geopolitical relationship between the nations has had a varied impact on the relationship between the two nations. (Pridham 451)
References
Oktav, Özden Zeynep. Turkey in the 21st century: quest for a new foreign policy. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011.Print.
Parker, Richard Bordeaux. The politics of miscalculation in the Middle East. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993. Print.
Rhodes, Fred. Syria: Revolution from Above. (Book Review). The Middle East 1 Dec. 2002: 34-42. Print.
Schleifer, Yigal. “Turkey aims for clout as regional mediator. (WORLD).” The Christian Science Monitor 6, May 2008: 18-33. Print.
Tachau, Frank. Turkey, the politics of authority, democracy, and development. New York: Praeger, 1984. Print.
Pridham, B. R. Contemporary Yemen: politics and historical background. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1984. Print.
Hilsum, Lindsey. Sandstorm: Libya in the time of revolution. New York: Penguin Press, 2012. Print.
The revolutions of 1989 refer to a series of revolutions that were realized especially in Eastern Europe as a protest against the communist system of government. Regardless of the wide spread of the protest across a number of countries, the revolutions were carried out in a non violent way except in few isolated cases. This paper seeks to discuss the reasons for the peaceful revolutions in the year 1989 contrary to previous revolutions that were marked by high levels of violence. The paper will also look at uprisings in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 which were violently countered. Overall this paper will clearly show why the 1989 revolutions were carried out in a peaceful manner as compared to the early revolutions.
Uprising in Hungary in 1956
The Hungarian revolution of the year 1956 was started in October by students and workers who boycotted classes and work respectively in order to protest against the country’s oppressive system of governance as was exercised by the communist system of government. The demonstrators made demands for general changes in the government’s system and enforcement of rule of law on leaders who were violating laws through application of justice on those who had done wrongs to the country. In response to the revolution, the government dispatched its “secret police” to disperse the citizens who had then been branded rebels.1 The secret police were, however, violent on the demonstrators as they used excessive force in their attempt to disperse the crowds and restore order in the streets.
They, in the process, arrested some of the demonstrators a move that further annoyed the demonstrating group. As a result, the demonstrators organized themselves to rescue their arrested colleagues consequently triggering the secret police to open fire on the demonstrating citizens. The general police then offered their weapons to the demonstrators who used the guns to fight the secret police. Even as soldiers were brought in to counter the demonstrators, their efforts did not yield much fruit as most of them joined the revolution and the remaining was defeated. The Soviet Union seemingly yielded to the protestors and withdrew its forces from Hungary allowing them to form their government under their desired reforms. The soldiers were, however, later to be returned for a violent mission that killed men, women and even children.2
The soviet made a violent move to counter what it had realized was a revolution to rebel against the communist form of government. The revolution was thus purely marked by extreme violence from both the demonstrating civilians and the Soviet government.3 The Soviet forces attacked Hungary with full military equipments that included “katyusha rockets from their multiple launchers, mortars and cannons from the T-54 Stalin tanks”4 among other weapons. They attacked any group that appeared to have a resistance possibility including neutral military bases. Seemingly, the main aim of the attack was a massive killing of the Hungarian people as the Soviet Union soldiers were explicitly required to fire into people. There were reported cases of military officers who were killed by their colleagues for failing to comply with orders to kill the Hungarians.5
Uprising in Czechoslovakia in 1968
Czechoslovakia, like Hungary, was in an attempt to break away from the communism form of governance that it had realized to be unfavorable to its economy. Though the revolution in Czechoslovakia was not as violent as that in Hungary in terms of the use of military by the people of Czechoslovakia, the communist society did not welcome the move and launched an attack on the country. Czechoslovakia had undertaken reforms to facilitate its developments following its poor economic performance. Its revolution was characterized by a number of liberations in terms of human rights among other things.6
Following the reform process that was undertaken by Czechoslovakia that also included economic reforms the communist world felt uncomfortable with the country and entered into talks with the aim of suppressing the reform process that Czechoslovakia was undertaking. An agreement was made between the two groups that the rate at which the reforms were being affected would be reduced. The communist countries however made a surprise military visit to Czechoslovakia in august of the year 1968 with troops from the then Soviet Union and other five allies. The military invasion of Czechoslovakia was supposed to use any possible level of force to counter any form of military resistance by Czechoslovakia.
The military resistance was however not encountered as the host was caught unprepared and the government of Czechoslovakia ordered its military against any resistance action to the invasion. The invaders were however met with serious civilian revolt against the invasion. A wide protest was registered with initial violent civilian attacks on the visiting military personnel. The revolution however settled to be a civilian revolution by the Czechoslovakian population. Leaders of Czechoslovakia were then moved to Moscow in the Soviet Union in an attempt by the communist alliance to establish a new government in the country followed by a conviction over the arrested leaders.
The protest in Czechoslovakia together with the unwillingness of its leaders to cooperate with the country’s invaders in establishing a new government however reshaped the move that shifted to negotiations for the country to reduce its pace of reform agenda which was viewed as a form of revolution against the communist society. This became the adopted solution though the people of Czechoslovakia were greatly disappointed in their leaders who entered into such agreement. Though the revolution by Czechoslovakia was not a violent one, the response that the communist alliance resorted to use was a military based violent approach that was only abated following the move by the then government of Czechoslovakia to stop its military from fighting the invading troops.7
The 1989 Revolutions
After the Second World War, there were divisions and alignments of countries in the influence of the cold war. Consequently, most of the eastern European countries found themselves under the influence of the communist government system that was the characteristic of the Soviet Union. There were however levels of discontent among civilians in these countries who felt that the communist government system was not favorable to their countries’ economies. Most significant resentments of the communist government system were among workers in most of the eastern European countries. Feelings and moves to break away from communist ideologies existed in the region prior to the year 1989 with specific cases of revolutions that were recorded in Hungary in the year 1956 and Czechoslovakia in the year 1968.
Logically the extreme measures that the Soviet government took were anticipated. It should be noted that the Soviet Union was trying to assert its influence in the region surrounding it and any successful revolution against its system of governance would mean a reduction in the influence of the Soviet Union. It is also logical to note that the Soviet Union was trying to outdo the United States as it also wanted to be recognized as a superpower and this could not be achieved if nations under its influence were continuously making attempts to break away from its system of governance. Ideally, this was a war meant to ensure that communism was moving ahead and not declining. It is correct to argue that the Soviet Army moved in to eliminate the threat that was being posed to the demonstrators who seemingly had viewed capitalism to be better placed to serve their interests than communism.
The revolution which was widely felt among communist countries started in Poland before spreading to other countries.8 The mass protests that started in Poland before spreading to other countries such as Bulgaria among others was a people led initiative in the communist countries to break away from the dictatorial government system that was characterized by a single party political system. It was a war in fight for democracy for people in the countries and freedom from the communist ideologies that had proved to be costly to the countries in economic and other terms.9
Causes of the Revolutions
The revolutions that widely swept through Eastern Europe in the year 1989 were as a result of a number of factors that drove people into protesting against the communist system of governance. One of the major reasons for the revolutions was the economic downfall that was widely realized among the communist countries. The economic problems had been a long term issue that the governments had for one reason or another failed to adequately react to. The economic instability was, for example, one of the reasons for the uprisings that had been previously realized in countries such as Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Economic ideologies that were adopted by the communist states which were characterized by heavy borrowing proved to be harmful to the economies of the states.
The strained economies that were definitely transferred to the citizens thus angered the people who blamed the problems entirely on their governments and the communist ideologies. It was this dissent towards the government systems that contributed to people’s rise for change. The Soviet Union that acted as the center for the communist community had also grown weak in its own economic system. Following the cold war with the United States, the Soviet Union had immensely spent on manufacturing military equipments at the expense of its economy. Following the country’s direct influence and control over the communist world, this economic compromise was passed over to the other countries leading to their economic instability.
The declaration of non interference by the Soviet Union on the affair of other communist states was another step for the call for reforms in these countries. Previously, the countries were directly under the Soviet and any uprising mandated the use of soviet forces that was always supplemented by forces from other communist states. This declaration therefore enabled people in these countries to make their revolutions without threats from the soviet military that they greatly dreaded. Other forms of government systems, such as capitalism, that the people in communist states realized were better than their system was another factor that led to the uprising in the bid to establish better economies.10 According to Kumar, the revolutions were driven by the people upon influence by leaders who were keen to see the development of democratic processes in the communist states.11
Soviet’s reaction to the 1989 revolutions
Following the resolution by the Soviet Union to grant autonomy to the communist states for any possible reforms, it withdrew its forces and influence over the countries. The former central administrative office that was seemingly located in Moscow ceased and the states were free to manage their affairs and reforms without any further influence from Moscow. As a result, the Soviet played a passive role in watching the revolutions contrary to the military actions that were previously taken against Hungary and Czechoslovakia that had earlier attempted such revolutions. It is noted that except for the case in Romania, other states underwent peaceful revolutionary processes that were free from violent.
It was only in Romania that violence was witnessed in the process of revolution. However, the violence was not from the Soviet Union administration but from internal rebels since the Romanian government refused to yield to the protests.12 In Bulgaria, for example, the revolution saw the president who had been greatly influenced by forces from the Soviet Union loose his post besides other numerous changes that were effected in the country’s government system. Other communist countries however encountered an entirely peaceful revolutionary transition. Apart from the liberating order that the Soviet Union had given over the communist countries, the Soviet was itself straining with its own instability which could have not allowed it to suppress the other countries.13 Wrangles in the Soviet Union that included threats by some of its states to secede from the union were factors to the weakened Soviet Union.14
Conclusion
Following the Second World War, the communist community grouped themselves under the Warsaw movement. The Soviet Union assumed supremacy of the communist world and power over the communist countries which the Soviet Union used to suppress any move in the community that undermined the communist ideals like in the initial cases of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Things however changed with Soviet granting military autonomy leading to non suppressed revolutions in the year 1989. The non violent revolutions were therefore as a result of the events that led to the Soviet Union’s restraint of military interference over affairs of the other communist states.
Bibliography
Armbruster, C, Discerning the global in the European revolutions of 1989, Cengage, New York, 2008.
This assignment explores the drivers of market revolution in the first half of the 19th century. The period of the Market Revolution was marked between 1793 and 1909 in the US. The major changes were related to labor. Improvements in the production of goods through changes in forms of labor were the first notable drivers of the Market Revolution. These changes rendered the traditional model of commerce archaic as new forms of communication and transportation emerged. The notable changes reinvented the idea of commercialism.
The growth of industries also facilitated the Market Revolution. The Industrial Revolution created stronger economies in North America. They wanted to promote free labor markets and spread their influences to other cities. On this note, the government of the time focused on the development of infrastructure to promote mobility of people and goods. Consequently, there were notable construction of roads, waterways, wide canal systems to support navigation of large ships and later the construction of long railroads throughout the nation (Carnes and Garraty 3-25).
After the 1812 War, the nation changed its economic model. The American economy, for instance, was transformed from import dependent to a more internal-based driven by commerce and manufacturing. That is, the US focused on domestic production rather than relying on imports from Europe (Sellers 74).
The leadership changed during the Market Revolution era. James Monroe became the President in 1817 and focused on promoting the Republicans’ policies of economic growth. The change in administration brought about a new generation of leaders with clear vision on government involvements in developments and creation of large-scale local production systems. The new leadership promoted the Market Revolution.
Notwithstanding these developments, the Market Revolution experienced some challenges. For instance, cheap labor from slaves faced resistance, the relations with native Indians resulted in conflicts, squalor in some urban areas and activities of speculators challenged the revolution. There was massive acquisition of land and notable population growth. The demand for statehood by some of the regions projected the tough question about slavery. During this period, a financial crisis also took place in the nation. As a result, some forms of regional specialization emerged by 1820s. For instance, in the south, there were large-scale plantations. On the other hand, the northern and western regions thrived on commerce and business. They become interdependent, which facilitated the Market Revolution.
Changes in agriculture affected the Market Revolution. However, these changes could be traced back to innovations in the industries. The ability to produce interchangeable parts of machines led to widespread changes in the production systems and soon there were many items with interchangeable parts to replace worn out ones. These new products transformed agriculture in the West. The invention of the steel plow transformed how plowing progressed after several centuries. Moreover, it was efficient and cheaper.
Further inventions also led to development in the Market Revolution. For instance, machines such as mechanical mower led to increased efficiency in agriculture. Previously, wheat farming was cumbersome without efficient mowing machines and therefore farmers relied on corn, which was not profitable. Farmers focused on acquisition of large tracks of land to grow cash crops, which raked in more profits. In fact, wheat became a major cash crop in the US. Farmers produced more wheat than they could use and therefore they started to sell surplus to other regions.
Wealth grew steadily leading mass migration to the US (Larson 102). Capitalism emerged. This was the beginning of the American Dream. Immigrants sought for wealth in the US as they focused on employment in specialized areas. They supplied the needed cheaper labor for mass production (Larson 26). Immigrants opted for better lives provided both labor and markets for manufactured products.
As markets became stable and agricultural sectors became dominant and profitable, the need for more laborers and slaves grew steadily. Cotton farmers specifically wanted more slaves for production. At this period, European countries and the North abolished slave, affecting cotton production in the South (Larson 89). While the slave trade was abolished, the use of slaves for cotton production did not end (Larson 89).
The textile industry required more raw materials, which put pressure on the South to increase its production capacity. These changes altered the role of children and women in the production process. They had to provide labor. As a result, slavery continued to shape the Market Revolution by providing labor in the South for production of raw materials, which supported the growth of the textile industry in the North.
The Market Revolution established America in the world as an economic and commerce hub. It was responsible for the wealth and political power of the US (Hofstadter 265).
In conclusion, the Market Revolution was driven by several factors. These included the Industrial Revolution, changes in agricultural models, innovation, changed in leadership, availability of land, slaves and immigrants for cheap labor, the growing markets and profitability and changes in family structure. These changes reflected cause-and-effect relationships.
Works Cited
Carnes, Mark C and John A. Garraty. American Destiny: Narrative of a Nation. 4th ed. New York: Pearson, 2011. Print.
Hofstadter, Richard. The American Political Tradition: And the Men Who Made it. New York: Vintage, 1989. Print.
Larson, John Lauritz. The Market Revolution in America: Liberty, Ambition, and the Eclipse of the Common Good. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Print.
The Cultural Revolution in China, which was a massive political crisis, formed the country’s political foundation. Notably, widespread violent rebel attacks on government institutions and Chinese communist party (CCP) structures characterized the Cultural Revolution. Mainly, Chinese people used Cultural Revolution to express their historical and social based problems (Wu 18). Specifically, Cultural Revolution meant to deter the penetration of bourgeois ideas and elements into revolutionary ranks. Primarily, Cultural Revolution magnified small conflicts into large clashes regarding identities, polarized political factions, and programs (Wu 20).
This essay paper presents a summary of Wu Yiching’s views on Chinese Mao’s Era in the article “Enemies from the Past: Bureaucracy, Class, and Mao’s Continuous Revolution”. In particular, the article reviews the assumption of the Chinese leadership by revolutionaries, the formation of cadre classes, the classification of Chinese people, and the entry of former leaders (KMT) into the communist leadership ranks.
When Revolutionaries Became Rulers
After the formation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, CCP encountered numerous challenges such as aligning radical social transformations with socialist objectives, strengthening the nation’s position in the interstate system, and meeting the primary needs of the disadvantaged population (Wu 23). Mainly, prolonged wars compelled CCP to use authoritarian and severe forms of rule to increase political repression, tighten information control, and strengthen the one-party system. Notably, the new communist state relied on a large number of workers; that is, 720,000 (1949) and 17 million (1973) cadre corps.
In the mid-1950s, the socialist state created a comprehensive system of cadre ranking. Particularly, there were 30 personnel ranks. Notably, grade 1 (state chairman and vice-chairmen) earned 560 Yuan; while, grade 30 earned 18 Yuan (Wu 25). On special privileges, the system determined cadre’s salary, the size of the house, eligibility of official car, personal nurse, chef, domestic servant, and, access to specialized medical facilities, schools (for children), foreign films, bathtubs, telephones, and books (Wu 25).
The expansion and consolidation of state and party bureaucracy led to authoritarianism, bureaucratism, abuse of power, corruption, conceit, commands, and complacency (Wu 29). To avoid Hungary’s related problem, in 1956 Mao allowed people to engage in labor strikes, make unfavorable comments, boycott classes, protest in rallies, and petition. However, in 1957, Mao’s leadership halted the criticism movement through the Anti-Rightist Campaign.
Socialist Bureaucracy and Ruling–Class Formation
Mainly, the doctrine of continuous revolution and the fundamental theory of class formation contained numerous interconnected but divergent interpretations such as the remnant influence of prerevolutionary elite, focus on the emergence of new bureaucratic class and emerging socioeconomic inequalities within the socialist society (Wu 36). Again, CCP focused on reducing consequences regarding lifestyles, interpersonal deference, and consumption patterns instead of dealing with differences in power, income, and educational skills.
Mao’s political conduct and attitude of defining social class were unstable and vague as they classified cadres as (1) good, (2) relative good, (3) those who made serious mistakes, and (4) a small number of antiparty rights (Wu 37). Besides, the Maoist notion of new bourgeois elements was broad and more heterogeneous in that it included cadres, their offspring, embezzlers, speculators, vested interest groups, bourgeois academic authorities and various black categories.
Class as Classification
Before the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese were labeled based on the class status of the male family head, which corresponded to his position at the CCP’s nomenclature of class (Wu 39). During the land reform period, class status was based on a socioeconomic scale comprised of property owners, rich peasants, poor and middle peasants, and landless laborers. Before land redistribution, party workers inquired about property holdings, occupations, and family background of villagers. After 1949, PRC had over 60 class categories of people (Wu 39). In rural areas, the main categories included workers, poor peasants, rich peasants, and landlords. In urban areas, residents were classified as urban poor, worker, or capitalist.
Codification of class was assimilated into the wider network of party control, political campaign, and social mobilization (Wu 42). Chinese institutions favored proletarians and discriminated against the bourgeoisie. In schools for instance, academic fields were classified as “highly restricted” or “top secret” (juemi), “restricted” or “secret” (Jimi) and “open” or “nonrestricted” (Liban) (Wu 43). Notably, an individual was classified as unsuitable for admission, eligible for nonsensitive fields, or eligible for restricted fields.
How the Old Bottle Spoiled New Wine
As Mao feared, the bourgeoisie, KMT functionaries, landlords, rich peasants and imperialists managed to infiltrate into CCP ranks as cadres and veteran revolutionaries or through representatives of the bourgeoisie. In some areas, the CCP leadership was held by landlords, counterrevolutionaries, rich peasants, bad elements, regenerate elements (Wu 49). Notably, Liu Shaoqi was a capitalist power holder, a traitor, and a KMT secret agent. Again, Zhang Chunqiao (Mao’s trusted theoretician) was a KMT special agent and CCP renegade. Besides, Wang Hongwen (CCP vice chairman handpicked by Mao) was a former Shanghai rebel leader.
Conclusion
The Cultural Revolution defined China’s political foundation as a country. The new government faced immense challenges such as meeting the basic needs of the deprived populace and matching radical social transformations with socialist objectives. Notably, the prolonged war compelled CCP to use an authoritarian form of leadership. In the 1950s, China witnessed the creation of cadre ranking with defined salaries, size of houses, official cars, domestic servants, telephones, books, schools, and foreign films. Again, PRC had over 60 class categories, which included classification such as workers, poor peasants, rich peasants, workers, urban poor, and landlords. Latterly, the bourgeoisie, KMT functionaries, landlords, rich peasants and capitalists penetrated into CCP ranks.
Work Cited
Wu, Yichang. “Enemies from the Past: Bureaucracy, Class, and Mao’s Continuous Revolution.” The Cultural Revolution at the Margins: Chinese Socialism in Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014. 17-52. Print.
The Persian constitutional revolution of 1905-1911 years in Iran is one of the most significant events in the history of this country. Various assessments of the events that took place in Iran require an in-depth revision of the history of the constitutional revolution studying its background and impact of this revolution on the subsequent social and political development of the Iranian state and the Islamic world in general. Iranian researchers along with foreign scholars are engaged in the investigation of this event wherein the analysis is not only of a scientific but also of practical significance (see, for instance, studies by Farzaneh (2015) or Martin (2013)).
The immediate reason for the uprising was the order of Tehran Governor-General Ala al-Dole dated December 12, 1905, to beat with sticks soles of those merchants who raised the price of imported sugar allegedly violating his prescription (Ahmed n.d.). It caused unrest in the capital that grew by the summer of 1906. If in winter, rebels demanded to create a Court of Justice, before which all would be equal and the resignation of Prime Minister Ain al-Dole and the head of the Belgian customs Naoussa, in the summer, in Tehran, public demonstrations calling for the adoption of a constitution and the convening of the Majlis, in other words, Parliament began.
Socio-economical Background and Reasons
At the beginning of the XX century, the population of Iran was composed of numerous ethnic groups and tribes speaking different languages such as Persian, Turkish, Arabic, and others (Axworthy 2010). About half of the country’s population were Persians, one-fifth of the population was Azerbaijanis, who inhabited the north-western region of the country. In connection with the emergence of bourgeois relations, the national consciousness began to form in the country.
The level of economic development of different regions of Iran also did not present a uniform picture. More densely populated and economically developed areas bordered on Russia. The most backward in terms of economic development and population were the south and southeastern regions of Iran, where a monopoly dominated by Britain. In the Kerman region, slavery persisted largely. The vast majority of Iran’s population were peasants.
According to Khazen (2009, p. 88), “the bulk of peasants comprised landless laborers and poor peasants.” At the beginning of the XX, the number of state-owned lands considerably reduced. Growing connection of agriculture with foreign trade and its adaptation to the market demand led to the fact that plenty of feudal lords and landlords began to seize lands of small landowners and peasants using their political and economic situation (Daniel 2013). Acting under various pretexts, they ruined those lands and concentrated in their hands. Arbitrariness and excesses of landlords and local authorities dominated in villages. In addition, in some areas of Iran, a sale of peasants into slavery remained.
The position of nomads differed from peasants’ one. Chiefs became feudal khans that allowed them to operate the ordinary nomads. It was expressed in the fact that the latter had to graze cattle chiefs as well as to give them some of their livestock along with livestock products, bring them gifts, and perform other duties in their favor (Daniel 2013).
Fleeing from starvation, tens of thousands of disadvantaged described above went from Iran to Russia to work, namely in the Caucasus and Trans-Caspian region (Hopkins 2011). By the end of the first decade of the XX century, the number of Iranian migrant workers in Russia amounted to almost 200 thousand people. Russian revolutionaries spoke to them, and seasonal workers who returned home brought new ideas with them; these ideas were quite radical sometimes (Iran Chamber Society n.d.). These ideas were eagerly soaked by starving peasants at the turn of XIX-XX centuries when the food problem in Iran has escalated that led to sporadic hunger riots and public demonstrations.
Political Prerequisite
The constitutional revolution was principally caused by internal and external policies of the ruling Qajar dynasty that had no real social base and had to maneuver between the aristocratic clans pitting them against each other (Axworthy 2010).
Internal Factor
With the appearance of the imperialist interest of European powers in Iran, Qajar tried to shift between Russia and Great Britain gradually giving the country’s resources to foreign companies. One of the striking examples of onerous concessions granted to foreigners was a concession issued by Baron Reuter on the use of natural resources and laying the railways. As a result of the Qajar policy, at the beginning of the XX century, Iran has actually become a conglomerate of tribes and the rulers connected only by generic and personal ties (Iran Chamber Society n.d.). The national bourgeoisie was radically stifled by foreign monopolies.
From the political point of view, Iran was a monarchy. Qajar monarchs owned sole hereditary power. It goes without saying that Qajar’s reign was rather oppressive (Farzaneh 2015). The country’s finances were in a state of severe crisis. At the beginning of the XIX century, the state budget has an annual deficit of about 3 million dozers while the total income varied between 7-8 million dozers. The central source of government revenue was the meat, in other words, tax on land holdings, livestock, trade, and crafts, and customs duties. Charging the maliat carried out by local authorities and accompanied by violence and arbitrariness.
The state budget deficit was covered mainly by foreign loans, which further strengthened the dependence of the country on foreign capital. The current situation in the country threatened Iran with a complete loss of national independence and the transformation in a backward agrarian colony of imperialists. It caused resentment and dissatisfaction with the public (Martin 2013).
External Factor
Among the factors that led to the revolution, there is the development of constitutional ideas affected by contact with the outside world. It was considered that its developed economies highlighted the urgent need for reforms in all spheres of economy and social life of Iran (Martin 2013).
For instance, revolutionary newspapers played a major role in awakening the Iranians, in the formation of public opinion, in the development and dissemination of the ideas of the revolution, and in the spread of constitutional ideas. In their memoirs and works, Iranian travelers analyzed issues relating to the formation of constitutional ideas among, public and political figures. Judging from their diaries, it should be noted that almost everything surprised them including European attitude to women, industrial enterprises, weapon factories, a free press, and the judiciary and the parliament’s work. An interesting fact is that the Iranian thinkers perceived the constitutional revolution, unlike their predecessors. They interpreted the term “liberty” as a separation from real life. However, before the revolution, it was perceived in its Western sense (Axworthy 2010).
Against the Persian Constitutional Revolution, there were imperialist powers of Britain and regal Russia, which sent troops to suppress the revolutionary movement (Axworthy 2010).
Religious Background
The Muslim Shiite clergy took a very prominent place in the social and political life of Iran. Higher clergy owned plenty of feudal landowners. According to Bayat (1991, p. 118), “any competent person knowing the rules of sharia, who could read and write Arabic and interpret the sayings of the Koran would be a spiritual person.” Nevertheless, the position in society and the impact on the masses depended on the scholarship, eloquence, piety, and wealth. Clergy sanctified the existing order preaching that the whole social system and procedures based on the Koran, sharia, and the Hasidim. Due to the lack of Iranian civil law, all court cases were decided on the basis of sharia, in which the clergy played a major role.
In order to strengthen its influence, clergy used the so-called best custom – the right to grant to persons persecuted by the authorities the inviolable refuge in mosques and tombs (Sohrabi 2015). In the hands of the clergy also was control over all schools. Since the higher clergy enjoyed great influence and interfere in the affairs of governance of the country, some contradictions between it and the ruling Qajar dynasty existed. At the beginning of the XX century, this conflict intensified in connection with the attempts of Nasser al-Din Shah to imply several reforms into the judicial system. Precisely speaking, he wanted to limit the power of religious courts and introduce some Europeanization in the court.
Just one jolt was enough for spontaneous demonstrations to escalate into the mass struggle against the existing system (Martin 2013). The Russian Revolution of 1905 became the impetus for it.
Impact on the Islamic World
Indeed, it was a radical change in the system. The Iranians wanted changes that have occurred. Their state was stood out among the whole region by its great originality and identity. Ironically, Iran has long been and remains the most democratic state in the Middle East, a region that is controlled or ruled until the beginning of the “Arab Spring” by kings and emirs. Its rapid development was unpredictable. The Persian revolution has led to the adoption of a democratic constitution. However, its “western version” was softened by the fact that the guarantors of the Constitution were Muslim theologians with their tight focus on sharia law (Bayat 1991).
Although the movement spread throughout the country after 1907, after that the liberals left the camp of the revolution. The revolution did not have clear goals and popularization. The theory of export of revolution in this region failed to some extent.
The Iranian revolution was the first mass movement in the Islamic world which took place in the 20th century (Ahmed n.d.); it became the impetus for the beginning of the “awakening of Asia”. It was the commencement of a new era in the history of the East, the epoch of the bourgeois-democratic and national liberation revolutions in the East against feudalism and imperialist kabbalah aimed at national independence and democratic freedom.
It led to the proclamation of the constitution and the creation of the first in the East parliament – Majlis that existed for a long period of time (Martin 2013). The Middle East felt the need to protect its oil interests and the possibility of a tougher line in relations with Western countries. For example, the main oil company, Saudi ARAMCO was nationalized in 1980, in other words, immediately after the revolution in Iran.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it should be stressed that the situation described in this paper indicates very tense circumstances that arose in Iran. The Iran Constitutional Revolution, like other great revolutions, contained a wide range of ideas and goals that reflect the ideological trends taking place among intellectuals, constituting the social and political background of the revolution (Farzaneh 2015).
Axworthy, M 2010, A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind, Basic Books, New York. Web.
Bayat, M 1991, Iran’s First Revolution: Shi’ism and the Constitutional Revolution of 1905-1909, Oxford University Press, New York. Web.
Daniel, EL 2013, The History of Iran, 2nd in, Greenwood, Santa Barbara, California. Web.
Farzaneh, M 2015, The Iranian Constitutional Revolution and the Clerical Leadership of Khurasani, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse. Web.
Hopkins, P 2011, ‘Iran’s Constitutional Revolution: Popular Politics, Cultural Transformations & Transnational Connections’, Iran & The Caucasus, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 337-340. Web.
Khazen, 2009, Tribes, and Empire on the Margins of Nineteenth-Century Iran, University of Washington Press, Seattle. Web.
Martin, V 2013, Iran between Islamic Nationalism and Secularism: The Constitutional Revolution of 1906, I.B.Tauris, New York. Web.
Sohrabi, N 2015, ‘Iran between Islamic Nationalism and Secularism: The Constitutional Revolution of 1906’, The Middle East Journal, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 144-146. Web.
The Revolution of 1776 is mostly attributed to the economic and demographic developments of the preceding decades. However, it is important to view them in the light of cultural, philosophic, scientific, and religious changes that occurred during the same period. These changes, described collectively as the Enlightenment and the Great Awakening, fostered the ideas of authority and independence and contributed to the Revolution.
Economic and Demographic Factors
The primary economic factor responsible for the initial setup of the conditions in America was the abundance of fertile land coupled with the relatively low density of the population. Early in the course of American history, it allowed the settlers to proliferate once the labor recourses were sufficient. As a result, the majority of the population enjoyed a relatively high level of life by 17th century standards. What’s more important, the distribution of wealth was equal, with most of the inhabitants qualifying as “the comfortable middle class” (Oakes et al. 132). Aside from the favorable social climate, this has led to steady population growth. Naturally, throughout the following century, the situation became less welcoming: each next generation needed to share the land it inherited, which undermined sustainability and prompted younger people to abandon the rural farming life and venture into cities in search of jobs (Oakes et al. 140). Naturally, this created a stratification of the previously uniform society: about 25% of the New York and Philadelphia population was below the poverty level (Oakes et al. 139). Such sharp contrast led to social unrest and tensions, which neared the Revolution.
The Southern colonies played a separate role in the formation of the independence concept. Being the most prosperous and resourceful states, they created the stratum of wealthy and independent individuals, “modeled after English country gentlemen” (Oakes et al. 141). For them, the theoretical authority of Britain was dubious, while their sustainability and power were tangible and real.
Great Awakening
Another contribution came from the Great Awakening – the religious movement, which became the basis for American Protestantism. Its main premise was the individual nature of faith. Aside from modernizing the religion and placing more responsibilities on the believers, it led to one important conclusion: the faith did not necessarily depend on the Church of England. As faith had a far greater influence on people’s decisions in the seventeenth century than it does now, it relieved them of the need to stick to the English authority and empowered them to create their own independent religious branch.
Enlightenment
However, the Enlightenment, a philosophical movement that emerged at around the same period, further transformed the understanding of the authority. The main premise of the Enlightenment was the central position of humanity in the Universe: human was no longer inferior to the forces of nature – instead, he could understand them and overcome them. Probably the most recognized example of such an approach is Franklin’s kite experiment conducted as a part of his studies of electricity. Previously, electricity was thought of as a “mysterious force, and lightning was a sign of God’s wrath” (PBS 1). Franklin’s experiment showed that it was not only knowable – it could be harnessed and controlled, giving more reasons to believe in individual power rather than providence and higher authority as determinants of life.
Conclusion
Obviously, both the Enlightenment and the Great Awakening also redefined the idea of government – the status of the English monarchy as a representative of the divine power was seriously challenged by the individual accountability suggested by the latter and the equality of human beings promoted by the former. Coupled with the very real economic difficulties created by the demographic layout and the growing social discontent resulting from it, these factors collectively shaped the readiness to pursue the national interests rather than humbly succumb to fate and providence.
Works Cited
Oakes, James, Michael McGerr, Jan Ellen Lewis, Jeanne Boydston, Nick Cullather, Mark Summers, and Camilla Townsend. Of the People: A History of the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print.