Chase them Dictators!

Like many, I have watched with great interest the wave of revolutionary decent sweeping the Middle East over the past few weeks and have wondered if this youth-engendered craving for democracy is genuine or merely a prelude to the Iranian-style democracy borne out of similar uprisings three decades ago. I have watched with great frustration how the Obama administration is dealing with this - first with its tacit approval of Hosni Mubarak followed by a half-hearted and muffled support for the people's yearnings for freedom (the same thing the American revolutionaries fought and indeed accomplished in 1776). I think rather than gamble, the administration chose to play it safe (not knowing what might ensue from the protests), and I think in doing so, Obama missed a huge opportunity to reaffirm US commitment to freedom and democracy.

Revolutions, by their very nature, produce unpredictable outcomes. But this is not necessarily a bad thing. The American Revolution, for instance, though a fairly organized and well articulated movement sought a different form of government, one both novel and audacious, but it was a chance Americans were willing to take in search of "a more perfect Union." See where that has taken us today; gradual evolution of the polity has seen more and more minority rights protected so that what many European powers feared in 1776 has become the cynosure of many around the world.

In spite of the above example, revolution can be a people's worst nightmare, if the result of the Russian Revolution is anything to go by. The latter showed how a revolution could easily be hijacked. In the early 20th century Russia, there was a rift in the Soviet Socialist Party resulting in two major factions the Mensheviks who were more inclined toward moderate political reforms and the Bolsheviks who took Karl Marx's Proletariat philosophy to heart and would welcome nothing other than the complete overthrow of the prevailing political system. The first of the Russian Revolutions, which occurred in February 1917, had the support of the Menshevik, but the Bolsheviks orchestrated the October Revolution and thus set the stage for the total entrenchment of the Socialist Party in Russian politics.

But should uncertainty be a source of concern for observers interested in the spread of Democracy? The answer is no. America was not a true democracy for many years after 1776, but the true aspirations of its people reflected in the revolutionary wars (and later the Civil War) have moved the nation increasingly toward a more equal and democratic state. This kind of transformation is possible in countries like Iran and Russia where their respective revolutions produced a less democratic polity. The people's aspirations will ultimately prevail; if one revolution does not create the necessary changes, then maybe the next one will. The yearning for change will only cease when the people get what they want. And this this is what Obama and his advisers have failed to realize. Dressing up a crony-cum-dictator in the cloak of "stability" will only hasten the need for another revolution.

A few pundits (Chris Mathews of MSNBC easily comes to mind) have got it right; when the choice is between the people and an oppressive regime, the US must do well to side with the people without any equivocation, not only because the people will surely outlive the regime, but especially since the American Revolutionaries and their Arab counterparts share a common aspiration - a desire to be free. If America no longer stands for freedom, what then does it stand for?

Your comments are welcomed, as always. Feel free to express your thoughts.