“The sacrifice of stability may in fact cause more rights to be violated, more discord, and more problems.”
Zachary Antoyan is a political science senior and Mustang News liberal columnist. These views do not necessarily reflect the opinion or editorial coverage of Mustang News.
We sensationalize popular uprisings that call for greater respect of individual freedoms, report on the heroism of protestors, and as soon as the government is ousted, neglect the arduous process of replacing it. If you haven’t noticed, revolution and government don’t mix well; while one seeks to establish order (despite many governments only seeking to exploit), the other seeks to dismantle current power structures.
Little attention is paid to how precarious it is to set up a government. The United States is actually pretty good at ousting governments — as Sterling Archer put it: “Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, uh … oh, Iran!” But when it comes to rebuilding systems of government, we can’t seem to get the formula right. Our bad, Iraq and Afghanistan.
We forget, in our ardent support for “democracy” and “freedom,” that these ideals require a stable government, the nuances of which are terribly specific to each region. As it turns out, shooting praise for rights and freedoms into crowds like we’ve got a damn T-shirt cannon doesn’t exactly work out.
The success of a country’s post-revolutionary government depends on how well order and the rule of law can be re-established in that country. Which, if the fact that a revolution just happened is an indication of anything, means the majority of coalition, post-revolution, interim governments in developing nations struggle to find footing. One need only to look at the plethora of case studies: Ukraine, Syria, Egypt, Libya or the only country to have its act even remotely together, Tunisia.
Ukraine is in all sorts of hell right now, but comparatively, it has done well to establish leadership in the absence of its ousted president, Viktor Yanukovych. Despite this little hiccup with Russia that Ukraine is having over Crimea, it is still in a good position to maintain order within the revolt-stricken streets of Kiev.
This is not to say, however, it is without its difficulties in attempting to build their replacement government. Election dates have been a contentious issue, where Yanukovych believes any elections held prior to those planned in December are illegal. The precedent of power is in limbo right now, and this leaves a massive power vacuum that could be filled by anyone. And by “anyone,” I mean anyone with enough money and influence — so in reality, it is only a handful of people.
This archetypal situation, where different factions vie for power after a government is overthrown, is exactly what is happening in Egypt. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, a political faction, established power in the elections following the fall of Hosni Mubarak. But in no way did this create stability.
Indeed, interactions between supporters of different factions have turned on each other, resulting in the steps taken by the military to quell clashes. The power vacuum left by an ousted government not only leaves the opportunity for some to seize power, but can also result in a shifting focus of protestors. Rather than act as a unit against an oppressor, those with differing opinions on how the country should proceed turn on each other.
Libya suffers from the same disorganization. Just this Tuesday, its Prime Minister Ali Zidan was forced out by the country’s parliament. Stability, it would seem, is the most difficult to come by when establishing a new government, but stability is necessary for a country to move on from a period of revolution. This principle, stability, is what the United States needs to be supporting when dealing with these countries in transition.
Out of the French Revolution came the Reign of Terror. Out of the American Revolution came the Articles of Confederation. The lack of stability in government resultant from revolution creates what is perhaps the most hazardous and unpredictable times in a country’s history.
Syria will inevitably run into this problem. Already within the opposition to the government, there exists a dissent and lack of cooperation. One can only assume what will happen should this coalition movement usurp Bashar al-Assad, as yet again a power vacuum will result in only more strife.
Tunisia, on the other hand, has seen progress from its popular uprising during the Arab Spring in 2011. Elections have been held and were considered to be free and fair, according to international observers. Public services remain intact, the government and the people follow the rule of law, and the power vacuum was quickly eliminated, all of which result in stability. This is the key component to establishing a government after a revolt. The sacrifice of stability may in fact cause more rights to be violated, more discord, and more problems.
This is Zachary Antoyan, thinking splitting California up into six states might not be that bad of an idea. Shhh, just think about it … shhhh, it’s awesome. Kick ass on finals for me.