The jasmine lesson: Reform beats revolution

[bemildred]

BEIJING - Two years after the start of the wave of jasmine revolution Revolutions in the Middle East, the situation appears to have gone back to where it began. Most countries, starting with Egypt, are reinstating some kind of dictatorship or authoritarian regime, while others that were formerly (or still are) paragons of evil regimes have completely collapsed or are in the throes of low- or high-intensity civil wars, as in Libya or Syria. Moreover, countries like Turkey that were supposed to bring stability to the region have also been contaminated by the spread of revolutions.

All of these countries' populations seemingly were keen to have huge political upheavals to solve their actual lack of economic direction. The issue in Egypt and Syria was that their own economic and institutional apparatuses were collapsing. The jasmine uprisings didn't stop the collapse or improve the economic situation in any way, but bringing down the old political systems made things worse for the economy and society.

From the vantage point of China, which two years ago was supposed to be touched by the jasmine contagion, the Chinese can say that they have been much better off without a revolution, be it jasmine, orange, red, or blue. (I wrote about this and the tragic epilogue of the jasmine revolution over two years ago - see Lessons from Tahrir to Tiananmen, Asia Times Online, February 17, 2011.) That is, revolutions are not the answer to systemic problems, and conversely, one could say that the people of Egypt, Libya, and Syria might have been much better off if the local regimes had stamped out the revolutions.

If, say, Egypt's former paramount leader Hosni Mubarak had at the same time cracked down on the protests and enacted the necessary economic and political reforms, perhaps the country would be better off now. Of course, the problem, which is the tragedy of the region, is that Mubarak - like Bashar al-Assad in Syria - was just interested in the crackdown without any reform, but ultimately the lesson for China remains. That is, revolutions by themselves are not the solution to the problem, reforms are. And this is even truer when the Chinese look at their own experience. Had Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists managed to crack down on the communists and carry out the necessary reforms in the mainland - as they did in Taiwan, where they landed in 1949 - China could have averted a 30-year depression under Mao.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/CHIN-02-310713.html

[Doctor_J]

1. Here

If, say, Egypt's former paramount leader Hosni Mubarak had at the same time cracked down on the protests and enacted the necessary economic and political reforms, perhaps the country would be better off now.

Nah. OWS was put down, and things still suck here

Of course, the problem, which is the tragedy of the region, is that Mubarak - like Bashar al-Assad in Syria - was just interested in the crackdown without any reform

Our government is better at resisting reform than most others. Between CU and rigged elections, our chances of getting out of this death spiral are almost nil.

[bemildred]

2. I thought it was interesting because of the source.

Criticiizing Mao and questioning the virtues of revolution in Asia Times. It's Hong Kong, but still.