The diffusion of Revolutions. A Comparison of regime turnovers in 5 Countries

Q2 Social Sciences
M. Fenger
{"title":"The diffusion of Revolutions. A Comparison of regime turnovers in 5 Countries","authors":"M. Fenger","doi":"10.3200/DEMO.15.1.5-28","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: The recent revolutions or near-revolutions in Serbia, Georgia, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine share the following characteristics: stolen elections triggered them, there were massive, nonviolent demonstrations, and the opposition united behind a single, often charismatic, leader. This article combines two theoretical perspectives on the recent revolutions in southeast Europe and Central Asia: a state failure perspective that focuses on the domestic characteristics that helps explain these events, and a diffusion perspective that focuses on the interrelatedness between these events by means of the interchange of financial resources, activists, and knowledge. It concludes that foreign interventions aimed at the democratization of unstable states might facilitate regime change by democratic or undemocratic means, but it is never a sufficient condition for regime change. Keywords: democratization, policy diffusion, revolutions, state failure Introduction The latest wave of revolutions in southeast Europe and Central Asia illustrates the vulnerability of oppressive, authoritarian, and nondemocratic regimes. This wave started in Serbia in 2000, and ended in Kyrgyzstan in early 2005. (1) Almost all of these revolutions share the following characteristics: stolen elections triggered them, there were massive, nonviolent demonstrations, and the opposition united behind a single, often charismatic, leader. Revolutions are often linked to the concept of failing states. However, various sources cite the role of foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that help build and sustain a coalition of opposition parties, train volunteers in campaigning and monitoring election results, and even formulate and implement strategies to overthrow the regime. (2) Singh even speaks of franchised revolutions. (3) This article combines two theoretical perspectives on the recent revolutions in southeast Europe and Central Asia: a state failure perspective that focuses on the domestic characteristics that helps explain these events and a diffusion perspective that focuses on the interrelatedness between these events by means of the interchange of financial resources, activists, and knowledge. This article contributes to the explanatory and--perhaps more important--predictive power of the state failure approach by taking into account the deliberate strategies of foreign actors to overthrow regimes. This analysis is based on a review of existing literature and databases, except for the Moldovan case, which is based on a series of interviews from March 2005. The literature on revolutions is elaborate and does not provide a consensus on how to define a revolution. I follow Goodwin, (4) who defines a revolution as any and all instances in which a state or government is overthrown and thereby transformed by a popular movement in an irregular, extraconstitutional, or violent manner. However, whether an event is labeled a revolution is not a matter of a simple dichotomy. Following Yinger and Katz, (5) one could argue that there is a potential variety in the amount of \"revolutioness\" in a revolution. So while using Goodwin's broad definition, I emphasize the variety within individual revolutions. The next section gives a brief overview of the state of the art of both state failure and policy diffusion literature and integrates them in an analytical framework. The following section has a description and analyses of Serbia's October Revolution, Georgia's Rose Revolution, Ukraine's Orange Revolution, Moldova's Silent Revolution, and Kyrgyzstan's Tulip Revolution. (6) Conclusions are then drawn from a comparative analysis of these five revolutions. The final section discusses the lessons that might be drawn regarding nonviolent action against nondemocratic regimes beyond the cases that are analyzed in this article. Theoretical Approaches: State Failure and Policy Diffusion The analytical framework that is used for analyzing the revolutions (and their interrelatedness) in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Kyrgyzstan is described here. …","PeriodicalId":39667,"journal":{"name":"Demokratizatsiya","volume":"30 1","pages":"5-28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Demokratizatsiya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.15.1.5-28","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Abstract: The recent revolutions or near-revolutions in Serbia, Georgia, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine share the following characteristics: stolen elections triggered them, there were massive, nonviolent demonstrations, and the opposition united behind a single, often charismatic, leader. This article combines two theoretical perspectives on the recent revolutions in southeast Europe and Central Asia: a state failure perspective that focuses on the domestic characteristics that helps explain these events, and a diffusion perspective that focuses on the interrelatedness between these events by means of the interchange of financial resources, activists, and knowledge. It concludes that foreign interventions aimed at the democratization of unstable states might facilitate regime change by democratic or undemocratic means, but it is never a sufficient condition for regime change. Keywords: democratization, policy diffusion, revolutions, state failure Introduction The latest wave of revolutions in southeast Europe and Central Asia illustrates the vulnerability of oppressive, authoritarian, and nondemocratic regimes. This wave started in Serbia in 2000, and ended in Kyrgyzstan in early 2005. (1) Almost all of these revolutions share the following characteristics: stolen elections triggered them, there were massive, nonviolent demonstrations, and the opposition united behind a single, often charismatic, leader. Revolutions are often linked to the concept of failing states. However, various sources cite the role of foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that help build and sustain a coalition of opposition parties, train volunteers in campaigning and monitoring election results, and even formulate and implement strategies to overthrow the regime. (2) Singh even speaks of franchised revolutions. (3) This article combines two theoretical perspectives on the recent revolutions in southeast Europe and Central Asia: a state failure perspective that focuses on the domestic characteristics that helps explain these events and a diffusion perspective that focuses on the interrelatedness between these events by means of the interchange of financial resources, activists, and knowledge. This article contributes to the explanatory and--perhaps more important--predictive power of the state failure approach by taking into account the deliberate strategies of foreign actors to overthrow regimes. This analysis is based on a review of existing literature and databases, except for the Moldovan case, which is based on a series of interviews from March 2005. The literature on revolutions is elaborate and does not provide a consensus on how to define a revolution. I follow Goodwin, (4) who defines a revolution as any and all instances in which a state or government is overthrown and thereby transformed by a popular movement in an irregular, extraconstitutional, or violent manner. However, whether an event is labeled a revolution is not a matter of a simple dichotomy. Following Yinger and Katz, (5) one could argue that there is a potential variety in the amount of "revolutioness" in a revolution. So while using Goodwin's broad definition, I emphasize the variety within individual revolutions. The next section gives a brief overview of the state of the art of both state failure and policy diffusion literature and integrates them in an analytical framework. The following section has a description and analyses of Serbia's October Revolution, Georgia's Rose Revolution, Ukraine's Orange Revolution, Moldova's Silent Revolution, and Kyrgyzstan's Tulip Revolution. (6) Conclusions are then drawn from a comparative analysis of these five revolutions. The final section discusses the lessons that might be drawn regarding nonviolent action against nondemocratic regimes beyond the cases that are analyzed in this article. Theoretical Approaches: State Failure and Policy Diffusion The analytical framework that is used for analyzing the revolutions (and their interrelatedness) in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Kyrgyzstan is described here. …
革命的扩散。5个国家政权更替的比较
摘要:最近发生在塞尔维亚、格鲁吉亚、摩尔多瓦、吉尔吉斯斯坦和乌克兰的革命或接近革命的革命有以下几个共同特点:选举舞弊引发了这些革命,有大规模的非暴力示威,反对派团结在一个通常具有魅力的领导人的领导下。本文结合了关于东南欧和中亚近期革命的两种理论视角:一种是国家失败视角,关注有助于解释这些事件的国内特征;另一种是扩散视角,通过金融资源、活动家和知识的交换,关注这些事件之间的相互关系。本文的结论是,旨在使不稳定国家民主化的外国干预可能通过民主或非民主手段促进政权更迭,但绝不是政权更迭的充分条件。最近在东南欧和中亚发生的革命浪潮说明了压迫性、威权主义和非民主政权的脆弱性。这一浪潮始于2000年的塞尔维亚,并于2005年初在吉尔吉斯斯坦结束。几乎所有这些革命都有以下特点:被窃取的选举引发了它们,有大规模的非暴力示威,反对派团结在一个单一的、通常是有魅力的领导人的领导下。革命常常与失败国家的概念联系在一起。然而,各种消息来源都提到了外国非政府组织的作用,它们帮助建立和维持反对党联盟,培训竞选和监督选举结果的志愿者,甚至制定和实施推翻政权的战略。辛格甚至谈到了特许革命。(3)本文结合了研究东南欧和中亚近期革命的两种理论视角:一种是国家失败视角,关注有助于解释这些事件的国内特征;另一种是扩散视角,通过金融资源、活动家和知识的交换,关注这些事件之间的相互关系。本文通过考虑到外国行为体推翻政权的蓄意策略,有助于解释和(也许更重要的是)预测国家失败方法的能力。这一分析是基于对现有文献和数据库的回顾,除了摩尔多瓦的案例,它是基于2005年3月以来的一系列访谈。关于革命的文献是详尽的,并没有就如何定义革命提供共识。我赞同古德温(4)对革命的定义,他将革命定义为国家或政府被推翻,并因此被一场非常规的、违反宪法的或暴力的民众运动所改造的任何和所有事例。然而,一个事件是否被贴上革命的标签并不是一个简单的二分法问题。根据Yinger和Katz的观点,(5)有人可能会认为,在一场革命中,“无革命性”的程度可能是多种多样的。因此,在使用古德温的广义定义时,我强调了个别革命的多样性。下一节简要概述了国家失败和政策扩散文献的现状,并将它们整合到一个分析框架中。以下部分对塞尔维亚的十月革命、格鲁吉亚的玫瑰革命、乌克兰的橙色革命、摩尔多瓦的无声革命和吉尔吉斯斯坦的郁金香革命进行了描述和分析。(6)然后通过对这五次革命的比较分析得出结论。最后一节讨论了在本文分析的案例之外,可以从针对非民主政权的非暴力行动中吸取的教训。本文描述了用于分析塞尔维亚、格鲁吉亚、乌克兰、摩尔多瓦和吉尔吉斯斯坦的革命(及其相互关系)的分析框架。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Demokratizatsiya
Demokratizatsiya Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Occupying a unique niche among literary journals, ANQ is filled with short, incisive research-based articles about the literature of the English-speaking world and the language of literature. Contributors unravel obscure allusions, explain sources and analogues, and supply variant manuscript readings. Also included are Old English word studies, textual emendations, and rare correspondence from neglected archives. The journal is an essential source for professors and students, as well as archivists, bibliographers, biographers, editors, lexicographers, and textual scholars. With subjects from Chaucer and Milton to Fitzgerald and Welty, ANQ delves into the heart of literature.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信