The transition after a revolution: What kind of future?

The demonstrations that brought down long term “permanent” rulers of Tunisia and Egypt in succession are signature events of early 2011. The domino effects of these political revolutions will not end in the Middle East. But this year that region will be marked in great turmoil with consequences for our world.

These events – because they impact on the sources of world oil supplies – will have implications on further oil price shocks. Even though growing demand for oil is a factor contributing to the surge of oil prices, when supply sources become less reliable, those price surges could only be reinforced.

There are more reasons that highlight these events for us. They remind us of our own political convulsions in February, 1986. Ours was the first true people power revolution in the modern world. And that was 25 years ago.

In that year, the world watched the crowds mass as EDSA. A sea of people cut off the march of soldiers and tanks to put down a military rebellion. The stalemate amidst the massive buildup of the human sea forced the downfall of Ferdinand Marcos. As a result, the promise of a new dawn under Corazon Aquino came forward to proclaim the return of democracy.

What awaits a country that has just overthrown their dynastic presidents? When crowds make the overthrow of dictators happen, who emerges triumphant?

Revolutions are fueled by social and economic inequity. When revolutions happen, inequity brings into the calculus of change the power of the once powerless and unequal. In the revolution of people power in which the crowds of people had forced that change – anything – that is, everything – is possible.

The change ultimately rests on those who emerge triumphant who controls the levers of power afterward. Contending parties will want to have a say in that outcome.

Some want a bigger pie for the nation (progress and economic development). Others want a bigger pie with justice (growth with equity). Others simply want a bigger cut for themselves (a bigger share of any pie, no matter what its size is). Inevitably, such a disagreement of purposes leads to a struggle for power among the parties.

Still there are other stakeholders who want only a different kind of freedom – human and political rights. And those who want political rights also may want economic rights. This means the right to make economic choices for themselves.

Revolutions therefore are unsettling because of the open claims of stakeholders on the levers of power. There are others who are out to confiscate the properties of others and others who want to keep their properties, their acquired rights, and their own positions in society. In short, it is the fight for change against defenders of the status quo.

Some revolutions however are quite clear in their outcome because they are propelled by single groups. When Fidel Castro came from the hills and conquered the government in Havana, the people welcomed his guerilla forces. The surprise however came when he imposed a communist regime on that island economy, quite a change from the many bourgeois changes in government.

When Hugo Chavez staged a coup in Venezuela, he followed on the heels of a socialist program of change under military control. But earlier, in Chile, when the army under Augusto Pinochet staged the coup against the socialist government of Allende, he instituted a capitalist economy based on free markets and unleashed an economic miracles based on the market in Latin America.

The transition period is the most dangerous period in any revolution. This is a major lesson of history. Sometimes the revolution fails and becomes a reaction – just a revolt that restored a lot of old vices and problems.

When the crowds succeeded in toppling Mubarak in Egypt, the military – from which Mubarak came – was still firmly in command – as a military council. The big question then is who will emerge triumphant. Is it just another personality change with a new military autocracy in place?

When Ben Ali fled Tunisia, his former officials took command of the country. But their hold on the country’s political power is very flimsy. The country is simply awaiting further instability with the military still in the wings.

In the 1970s, Iran’s populace got rid of their Shah. But religious fervor installed a sectarian autocracy. The iron hand of religious dictatorship continues to grip Iran today. The civilian government is controlled by the theocracy that has a single voice in the government.

When the Tsar was eliminated in Russia in 1917, a brief period of political struggle for control of the government in Moscow led to the triumph of the Leninist bloc. This was followed by a long civil war of political consolidation that only Stalin, the successor of Lenin, finished at the cost of enormous internal bloodshed.

In France, in one of the oldest revolutions in the 1780s in Europe, fine ideals and dissent were appropriated by empire and national disaster. By using a reign of terror to eliminate enemies, initial allies among the revolutionists turned toward each and unleashed the guillotine as the weapon for settling scores. Thus, beheadings followed some of the losers in that power struggle.

Eventually, Napoleon, the gifted soldier who was initially brought into a ruling committee of three rulers, consolidated power unto himself. Eventually, Napoleon was seized by ambitions of empire that decimated French national power and consumed the lives of young Frenchmen in losing wars.

When Philippine People Power took center stage. The Philippine EDSA revolution had main actors who gave a premonition about what kind of immediate future was at hand. The final outcome of a presidential election was being contested between a sitting president (Marcos) and a challenger (Cory Aquino) when a side-event occurred in which a plot of a military uprising of young officers (RAM) was uncovered.

Senior leaders within the government (Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and Deputy Armed Forces Chief Fidel Ramos) found out they were directly implicated and were about to be arrested. So they encamped together with the young officers in Camp Aquinaldo. With uncanny presence of mind, Enrile sought support from the Church (Cardinal Sin) who immediately told the faithful to surround the mutineers so as to save them from destruction by the military.

In this revolution, the magic of modern communications – phones, radio, television – brought the people out in the streets. Cell phones, Internet, Facebook, and any other modern quick telecommunication were not yet then available. But the power of communications enabled the massing of people around the camp in a short matter of time. This created an impenetrable human mass that could not be broken except by destruction.

It was to the credit of Marcos that he did not order a forced destruction of the human sea. Other leaders were not so kind. This was unlike what happened in Tien An Mien in Beijing later in 1991 or just as recently in Bahrain, in Iran and in Libya. In all these cases, government forces were ordered to take note.

The victor in EDSA was Cory Aquino and the united political opposition to Marcos. The military that provided the linchpin for the final victory allied with the presumed electoral winner.

In the next week, I will discuss the problems of the transition and how the economy was unable to take advantage of the legacy of Marcos fully. Marcos, despite the negative image that he received after he lost power, had left a substantial legacy that a competent successor could have seized as basis for national development and progress.

Visit this site for more information, feedback and commentary: http://econ.upd.edu.ph/gpsicat/