A revolution by definition is a radical change in the political governance of a people, resulting in the overthrow of a government and it’s replacement with something fundamentally different to what preceded it. Historically revolutions have created dramatic and all encompassing change all within a relatively short period of time, hence true revolutions are rare and infrequent.
The politically romantic think that a mass of people coming to the streets can manufacture revolutionary political change. No one can doubt that mass public opinion and activism is a fundamental part of any revolutionary struggle, however alone it is incapable of nurturing real change.
It has been over a month since the Libyan uprisings began, a whole lot longer since the people came to the streets of Cairo and longer still since Mohammad Bouazizi set himself alight. The question is have we seen any revolutionary political changes?. The honest and maybe unpalatable answer is an unequivocal NO.
The euphoria since the departure of Mubarak has been overtaken by the normality of everyday life and by the events in the rest of the region. Even the vote to push through reforms hasn’t caught the imagination of the world like the protests did, Tunisia and Egypt have the distinct feeling of the morning after the night before.
This assessment is by no stretch of the imagination a judgment on the protestors and their efforts these have been beyond doubt and have set a very high standard for the rest of the Muslim world to follow. The lesson that must be learnt is that without a clear political objective and direction revolutions will always be in danger of being comprised once pragmatism sets in.
This may be abundantly clear in Libya where other states have now involved themselves directly in the fighting, but this also goes for Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Bahrain. Mere cosmetic changes are ways of buying time, of snuffing out opposition and falling back to plan B they never bring any kind of true change.
Imagine if you for a moment, that the French revolution didn’t end in the ouster of King Louis XVI but merely replaced him ,where would secular liberal democracies be today?
If the Tzar of Russia wasn’t executed and was replaced by his son Alexander would the Bolsheviks have ever taken power. Not to say I agree with any of the methods or outcomes of the French or Russian revolutions, but it is clear those involved never accepted a comprise solution.
So as Muslims why do we find ourselves scratching our heads as to what the next move should be in the Middle East, allowing others to dictate solutions and terms to us, whether that be democracy or capitalism.
Revolutions end in something distinctly different not the same thing but with a Western inspired twist. Revolutions sparked by the Muslim masses must end in a solution from Islam and nothing else, it is the only conclusion that can be drawn.
It makes no sense to spend night after night in Tahrir square or the streets of Bengazhi chanting the name of Allah (swt) and praying for victory to only turn your face Westwards when that victory finally arrives.
