Tunisia's Ben Ali has left his palace for Saudi Arabia, Egypt's Mubarak has said he will step down in September and the Yemeni President, Saleh too may be gone soon. And even Jordan's King Abdullah II may soon lose much of his powers if he doesn't play his cards right. Seems like the 'revolution virus' that had infected the east European nations which led to the downfall of many pro-Russia regimes has mutated into an 'anti-U. S. ally' strain infecting the Arabs. Indeed, all the three that are facing problems now are/were dictatorial regimes close to the U.S., allies in its war against terror and suppressors of radical Islam. What went wrong?
It cannot be economic problems alone. The people of these countries are far better off than the citizens of North Korea which is supposedly 'Communist' but is nothing short of an oppressive monarchy feeding on the blood of its people. Neither can it be the fact that human beings ordinarily get bored when a guy rules them for a period of more than ten years continuously. Just look at Fidel Castro. He gave up his presidency to his brother Raul only when he became too sick to run the country. Any sign of revolution in Cuba over this family rule? Nope. Suppression of religious radicalism by secular regimes? Remember Saddam Hussein. Freedom due to internet? Singapore. And also, Egyptian protests continued despite the internet disruptions. Discontent of youth that constitute a large section of the population? What about the remaining Arab countries?
It is a combination of all these factors that is at work here. Firstly, the governments are all dictatorial regimes at odds with the general sentiments of the people. No popularly elected Arab government would ever dream of aligning with the U.S. as long as it so blindly supports Israel in all matters. Nor would it be so intolerant of the people's growing 'attachment' to their religion in face of severe economic hardship. Marx had said that 'Religion is the opium of the masses.' I am forced to agree with him for once. Then you have a huge segment of the population in all these countries which falls in the category of 'educated, unemplyed youth', which if mapped from political science to military talk, corresponds to 'RDX with a detonator.' With internet to help you organise protests against old men who should have retired long ago and with all the rhetoric in the international community about supporting democracy(?) in Afghanistan, Iraq, Myanmar, etc., etc., it is a wonder that revolutions are taking place such a long time after the economic downturn began.
Honestly, economy is the major factor here. China and Singapore are not as worried about revolutions as we would like them to be as their citizens have too much work to do. In a booming economy, revolutions are confined to the dreams of lunatics. In stagnant ones, however, the call for a revolution will find support even among people who are well-off. Still, for protests to actually occur, there are pre-requisites like awareness about the misdeeds of the regime and a hope that the sacrifices that will be made will fetch rich dividends in the long run. Sure, there are idealists who will willingly give up their lives for their cause, but the mass movements required for the removal of an entrenched government can be organised faster and sustained longer only if their leaders promise to improve the financial condition of the people (and not necessarily the nation). Of course, people do not like being told that they shouldn't wear their religion on their sleeves, but majority wouldn't mind if they gain from it. That is the reason why even non-Wahabis migrate to Saudi Arabia. And also why the Emirates are comparatively liberal.
Another important requirement for a revolution to succeed is that the government and the protestors should not have any major common enemy/rival. Both the Chinese and the Chinese government view the U.S., Japan and the Western countries as threats that seek to undermine the story of the nation's success and contain it. Pakistan has India, Iran and quite a few countries around it have Israel. From the above examples, it seems that geographical proximity to this rival is essential too, for the governments to whip up emotions in support of it. Or is it that it is more convenient to accuse and fight with your neighbours?
So, dictators of the world, if you have ruled for more than ten years, your economy is in a shambles, your population is young and you have suppressed their aspirations - economic, religious, political and other categories, and yet allow people to freely access internet and gain knowledge about some dangerous concepts like democracy, liberty, equality, human rights, etc., then please be ready to fly out of your country. Pack your bags with the riches you have accumulated (You can't trust the banks now, with the Wikileaks!) and have the tank of your plane filled.
Democracies seem to be relatively immune to revolutions, no matter how incompetent the elected governments are. (By a democracy, I mean a country where citizens actually get to vote.) May be it is the blind belief that they can change the system with the ballot that sedates them.
The truth, however, remains: There is nothing permanent other than change and the more it changes, the more it remains the same.
