Revolutionary Disillusionment, from 1789 to 2013
By Alyssa Goldstein Sepinwall, a professor of history and director of graduate studies at California State University, San Marcos.
The abbé Henri Grégoire, a French revolutionary who was the subject of some of my past work, is a prime example of this phenomenon. Grégoire was one of the leaders of the French Revolution in 1789, and he gloried as the Revolution succeeded. The overthrow of the king was a dream come true for him (“On this September 21 [1792],” he wrote after the French Republic was declared, “we have annihilated the throne of this crowned monster. Since yesterday, I have been suffocated by joy to the point of being unable to eat or sleep.”) Unfortunately, Grégoire also lived to see the French Republic replaced by Napoleon’s Empire in 1804, and then the Restoration of the Bourbon Monarchy in 1814-15. Grégoire became disgusted with how quickly his countrymen forgot the ills of the past and abandoned the fight for a new society. Though he became pessimistic about human nature (he wrote an associate in 1817 that one needed to have spent two decades in politics “to understand the extent to which the majority of public figures... in France are weak, ungrateful and vile”), he continued to hold fast to his revolutionary ideals and to seek other ways to channel them. One way in which he directed his frustration was to export revolutionary ideals abroad, to countries still under monarchies; he also supported young republics like the United States and Haiti, who struggled to avoid being conquered by their former rulers. (Sepinwall, The Abbé Grégoire and the French Revolution: The Making of Modern Universalism [UC Press, 2005])
After the Arab Spring, there has been similar disillusionment among former revolutionaries. While scholars and journalists have examined the Arab Spring’s aftermath mainly in Egypt, similar disenchantment has set in elsewhere, such as in Tunisia, the birthplace of the movement. How much, citizens there ask, has really changed?
The New York Times has a fascinating article today on this topic (“Tunis Journal: A Café Where the Spirit of the Arab Spring Lives On”). The article examines the viewpoint of actors, artists and others who hoped the Arab Spring would transform the region. It focuses on Noureddine El Ati, a Tunisian actor director with an international reputation, and his disenchantment with the revolution there. (“‘People were radiant,’” he said. But the euphoria lasted only about three weeks. “Now we are in a black tunnel…. I thought the people would come to power, and society would move towards more transparency, equality, a good work ethic, but it is exactly the opposite.”)
http://hnn.us/articles/revolutionary-disillusionment-1789-2013
= new reply since forum marked as read
They overestimate their skills and minimize the task. They also tend to think that they are more numerous than they are and enjoy untrammeled popularity because everybody agrees with them.
They're usually fools. Fools can accomplish great things. Usually they don't.
When things go wrong they get frustrated. A strong leader arises to fulfill their wishes, and as things spiral down into utter hell they continue to have a perception filter that says everything's okay, all the bad stuff is temporary, it'll be okay and all bunnies and daffodils. Until they're the last dissents and they're trucked off to the prison camps or guillotines or rice paddies.
In Egypt, the "liberals" thought they were more numerous than they were. They thought everybody agreed with them. They thought they'd easily do what they needed to do and that the task was simple for them, however much Mubarak screwed it up.
Most of the people were there for economic concerns and of low educational achievement; keep people reasonably content even though enslaved and they're fine unless they become educated, then they're likely to be ideologically unhappy. The deep state (to use Grumpy Comrade's expression) quickly caught on and in opposing Morsi made the economy worse, rescuring the liberals.
Who are now in a funk because for them liberty = repressive state of emergency, freedom to assemble = gunning down protestors, economic liberalization = having the state run things. The only way they can get by is to utterly dehumanize their ideological foe (which is a commonplace after a revolution, when the masses fail to fall into line).
The revolutionaries bring this problem entirely on themselves. To gain support, they promise that all will be bunnies and daffodils after the revolution. They bill themselves as saviors, feeding their narcissism and delusions of grandeur ("true believers"
. All will be glorious when they rule, because slaying dragons is easy for them. When it all falls to pieces after the revolution those they unwittingly deceived come back demanding prosperity. French Revolution, Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin--and then when Comecon broke apart there were large economic slumps when the masses expected prosperity. Heck, even the American Revolution had a massive depression after the War, with calls to return to Britain--no more could the leaders blame the war for the problems.
Add to that Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, and many others.
The problem was also harder, and they'll find this out. The Army, the constant in all of this knows. By repressing the MB all other groups that would protest see what awaits them if they protest.