A review of The Anatomy of Revolution by Crane Brinton: Analyzing color revolutions using Brinton's criteria

(See the previous post to read the first part of the review)

Introduction

Are color revolutions true revolutions?  What characteristics do color revolutions share?

This post describes the similarities and differences between color revolutions in Kyrgyzstan and Georgia and the four revolutions that Crane Brinton analyzed. Though Kyrgyzstan technically had two revolutions, I analyze them together, since events after the second one parallel those in Georgia after Saakashvili in some ways. (Information about war-torn Ukraine is more contradictory than about revolutions in the other two countries. The revolutionary process there is likely to be incomplete, so it is mentioned only briefly.)


Distinguishing characteristics of color revolutions

Unlike the four revolutions in Brinton’s book, color revolutions in Kyrgyzstan and Georgia were less oppressive. The color revolutions involved less oppression against the old regime and its supporters. Though Akayev, Bakiyev and Saakashvili faced criminal charges, all three fled abroad. Eduard Shevarnadze, the Georgian President before the Rose Revolution, only had to step down from office. There were no confiscations or personal freedom restrictions.

The revolutions that Crane Brinton studied were social and class-based, and so were color revolutions. The emerging middle class hoped that new governments would respond to their needs better than the old Soviet-style governments that stayed in power through rigged elections. Migrants who worked abroad wanted more freedom of travel. Color revolutions did not change the economic systems of their countries: their governments had already allowed free enterprise. Yet both countries progressed from further economic and political liberalization.

Brinton stressed in his book that with the exception of the American Revolution that he had used as a control, the revolutions he analyzed were not nationalistic or territorial. Due to contradictory information, however, we cannot use the revolutions in Ukraine as a full-scale control. Pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian sources disagree on the extent of nationalism in Ukraine, but it played a far bigger role in the Orange Revolution of 2004 and the Euromaidan of 2013-2014 than in color revolutions in the other two countries. The governments of ex-President Yuschenko and current President Poroshenko in Ukraine were noted for being more oppressive than those in the other two countries, though sources also vary on their claims about the extent of the oppression. There has been a split between western Ukraine, whose people tended to embrace the new pro-western governments, and eastern Ukraine, whose people tended to support the pro-Russian ex-President Yanukovich. Later, Ukraine would lose the peninsula of Crimea to Russia and two pro-Russian separatist republics would emerge in the Donbass region. Hence, the Ukrainian revolutionary process is atypical for color revolutions.

The leaders and their policies

Backgrounds of the new Presidents differed. In Georgia, western-educated and western-trained Saakashvili replaced Shevarnadze, Soviet ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs. Yet both Kurmanbek Bakiyev and Askar Akayev used to hold positions in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). In 1989-1991, Akayev was a People’s Deputy of the USSR and a member of the Committee of the Supreme Soviet (the USSR’s legislature) on Economic Reform issues, reports RIA Novosti. In 1990-1991, Bakiyev was the First Secretary of the Kok-Yangak City Committee of the CPSU and Chairman of the City Council of Kok-Yagnak, also reports RIA Novosti. Mikheil Saakashvili was 37 years old when he became President, fitting in the age category that Crane Brinton described, unlike the 54-year-old Bakiyev at the time of his first year of presidency.

The policies of the new Presidents also differed. Saakashvili reduced government expenditures and curbed corruption. In July 2004, Georgia reformed the police. Around 30,000 police officers were fired to create a corruption-free force. In 2015, Georgia ranked 48th place on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, compared with 124th place in 2003, reports the Centre for Public Impact. Other reforms included establishing private health insurance and introducing school vouchers. On the other hand, Bakiyev did little to fight corruption. Kyrgyzstan fell from 130th place in 2005 to 164th place in 2010 on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index.

New governments enhanced ties with the West and worsened relations with Russia. Conflicts occurred in both countries. Georgia fought a war against Russia and the separatist regions of Abkhasia and South Ossetia in 2008 and faced prohibition of Georgian mineral water and wine imports into Russia. Bakiyev did not directly confront Russia, yet fell between two stools. A U.S. military base for fighting terrorism in Afghanistan had operated on the territory of Bishkek Airport since 2001, though the Bakiyev Administration proclaimed its intention to close it. In 2009, however, the base was reorganized into a Transit Center, reports BBC News. In response, Russia slapped new duties on fuel exports into Kyrgyzstan, report David Trilling and Chinghiz Umetov, of EurasiaNet.org. The Bakiyev Administration also increased ties with China. A deal on building the Datka-Kemin transmission lines was signed between Kyrgyzstan’s national power company and the Chinese Tebian Electric, to make Kyrgyzstan independent from the Central Asian transmission system, reports Erica Marat, of Eurasia Daily Monitor. After Bakiyev was overthrown, Kyrgyzstan experienced ethnic tensions. As many as 2,000 people may have died in the clashes in June 2010 between ethnic Uzbeks and Kyrgyz that followed the second revolution, reports BBC News. 

Power struggles and protests

There were no struggles between “moderates” and “extremists” or dual sovereignty in either country, yet both leaders faced resistance after color revolutions. After the Rose Revolution, Aslan Abashidze, leader of the autonomous republic of Adjaria, refused to recognize Saakashvili’s regime. Yet the military in Adjaria sided with the central government. On May 6, 2004, Abashidze resigned and fled to Russia where he currently resides, reports Democracy and Freedom Watch. Felix Kulov, Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan from August 15, 2005 till January 29, 2007, had initially intended to run for President, but joined Bakiyev’s team. Yet several scandals, particularly the killing of deputy Tynychbek Akmatbayev, triggered Kulov’s resignation, reports Sputnik. After resigning, Kulov joined the opposition and petitioned for a referendum to form a confederation with Russia, reports Ferghana News.

Both presidents cracked down on rebels against their regimes. In November 2007, thousands of protesters demanded Saakashvili’s resignation. Over 350 people were injured on the first demonstration day alone, reports C.J. Chivers, of The New York Times. In May 2011, about 5,000 people gathered for protest again. Two people were killed and 37 received minor injuries, reports the Deutsche Welle. In 2009, after Bakiyev was re-elected by 76% of the vote, the police detained dozens who claimed that he had won the election illegally, reports the Voice of America.

Convalescence periods

Convalescence periods occurred after these leaders were removed from power. Saakashvili was not permitted to run for a third term; Kyrgyzstan experienced a second color revolution. Both leaders are wanted in their countries for power abuses.

The Georgian Dream, the new ruling party of Georgia, initiated talks to delink economic and social issues from territorial disputes to make Russia re-open trade with Georgia, reports Vesti.ru. This party included many “red directors”, or people who have been holding managerial positions in enterprises since the Soviet period. Many of them had connections with the passsed-away ex-President Shevarnadze, a supporter of the Georgian Dream, reports the Krym.Realii information agency. However, Georgia still pursues accession to the European Union and NATO. In May 2017, Georgia also signed a free trade agreement with China, reports News-Georgia. In April 2018, the Georgian President signed constitutional amendments, making Georgia a parliamentary republic, reports Naviny.by, a Belarus-based news agency.

After 2010, Kyrgyzstan increased its ties with Russia. The country joined the Eurasian Economic Union in 2014. Some analysts argued that Kyrgyzstan became more authoritarian. Former President Atambayev had signed a constitutional amendment that increased the power of the prime minister and parliament, reducing political risks of another President coming to power. However, Kyrgyzstan is no longer obliged to abide by any international ruling on human rights violations within its borders. In 2017, Freedom House published the report The Nations in Transit 2017, re-classifying Kyrgyzstan as a Consolidated Authoritarian Regime, a category it had left in 2011. Nevertheless, the Kyrgyz Parliament is the most powerful legislature among all Central Asian countries, implying better division of power.

Color revolutions affected both countries. Each paid with ethnic conflicts and sanctions from Russia. Georgia gained from a reduction in corruption, underwent market reforms, and expects gains from increased trade with the EU countries. Kyrgyzstan remains poor and authoritarian, but decreasing the power of the President reduced political risks of another one coming to power. 

Conclusion

The collapse of the USSR and the color revolutions that occurred in some former Soviet republics show that revolutionary trends that Crane Brinton illustrated in his book are still relevant in many ways. I highly recommend reading The Anatomy of Revolution by Crane Brinton.

References

BBC News. Bakiev sworn in as Kyrgyz leader. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4150084.stm. 2005.

BBC News. Kyrgyz referendum backs constitutional change plan. http://www.bbc.com/news/10426533. 2010.

BBC News. Q&A: Kyrgyzstan’s ethnic violence. https://www.bbc.com/news/10313948. 2010.

BBC News Russian Service. Kyrgyzstan: 10 years of American military presence. https://www.bbc.com/russian/international/2011/12/111223_kyrgyzstan_us_base_anno. 2011.

Centre for Public Impact. Seizing the moment: Rebuilding Georgia’s police. https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/siezing-moment-rebuilding-georgias-police/. 2016.

Chivers, C. Georgia cracks down on protesters. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/world/europe/07iht-georgia.4.8235996.html. 2007.

Democracy and Freedom Watch. Aslan Abashidze, Adjara’s former ruler, sentenced in absentia to 15 years’ jail. http://dfwatch.net/aslan-abashidze-adjaras-former-ruler-sentenced-in-absentia-to-15-years-44500. 2016.

Deutsche Welle. Georgian police cracks down on protesters on Independence Day. http://www.dw.com/en/georgian-police-crack-down-on-protesters-on-independence-day/a-15107937. 2011.

Ferghana News. Felix Kulov suggests a confederation with Russia. http://enews.fergananews.com/article.php?id=1991&print=1. 2007.

Freedom House. Nations in Transit 2017. Kyrgyzstan. https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/2017/kyrgyzstan. 2017.

KrymRealii. How the "Georgian Dream" became a bluff.

Marat, E. Kyrgyzstan boosts cooperation with China. https://jamestown.org/program/kyrgyzstan-boosts-cooperation-with-china/. 2010.

Naviny.by. Georgia has become a parliamentary repubic. https://naviny.by/new/20180402/1522691711-gruziya-stala-parlamentskoy-respublikoy. 2018.

News-Georgia. Georgia and China signed a free trade agreement. https://www.newsgeorgia.ge/gruziya-i-kitaj-podpisali-soglashenie-o-svobodnoj-torgovle/. 2017.

RIA Novosti. Askar Akayev: The President’s fate. https://ria.ru/spravka/20061107/55430275.html. 2006.

RIA Novosti. A biography of Kurmanbek Bakiyev. https://ria.ru/amp/spravka/20130212/922540147.html. 2013.

Sputnik. How prime ministers were gone: scandals before resigning. https://ru.sputnik.kg/politics/20160411/1024195234.html. 2016.

Transparency International. 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index. Results. https://www.transparency.org/cpi2010/results. 2010.

Transparency International. 2005 Corruption Perceptions Index. Results. https://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/cpi_2005#results. 2005.

Trilling, D. Umetov, C. Kyrgyzstan: Is Putin punishing Bakiyev? EurasiaNet.org. https://eurasianet.org/s/kyrgyzstan-is-putin-punishing-bakiyev. 2010.

Voice of America. Kyrgyz authorities crack down on opposition rallies. https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2009-07-29-voa26-68652882/354422.html. 2009.

A review of The Anatomy of Revolution by Crane Brinton: The commonalities of revolutions


Introduction

Can we compare Joseph Stalin to Oliver Cromwell? What сharacteristics do major revolutions share? The American historian Crane Brinton described the common characteristics of four revolutions in The Anatomy of Revolution, published in 1938 and revised in 1965.


Key features

Crane Brinton distinguishes the popular use of the word “revolution” from the narrowly defined use that he analyzes. A true revolution involves suddenly replacing a group, leading a territory, with an opposition group, usually through a violent uprising.

During the English, the French, the American, and the Russian revolutions, an oppressed majority rebelled against the ruling minority. Governments failed in their attempts to crack down on the rebels and prevent the revolution. Although the Russian revolution was not democratic, Englightenment ideas influenced it.

Crane Brinton argues that the class struggle, though important in each revolution, was not the sole cause. In these four revolutions, the old regimes were not economically retrograde, yet large populations were discontented. The ruling class had barred entrepreneurs from making political decisions. It was not the poor who led the revolts. In all four countries, the old regimes had attempted failing and unpopular reforms. Each revolution began in hope and literal interpretation of ideals but ended in tyranny.

The American revolution did not follow that pattern, and Brinton used it as a control. Unlike the other three, the American revolution was both territorial and a part of a social movement. Also, terror did not occur during the American revolution to the same extent. There was no clear split between moderates and extremists during the American revolution.


The revolutionists

Contrary to stereotypes, most revolutionists were neither inexperienced nor immature. Some had previous experience in business or politics. Most revolutionists were in their thirties and forties when they became leaders. This is younger than most politicians in more stable societies, but not precociously young.

Struggles between moderates and extremists

After the old government was overthrown, struggles between moderates and extremists followed. There were dual sovereignty periods when an illegal extremist rival government challenged the legal moderate government. In Russia, France and Great Britain, extremists won. Most people regarded the moderates in power as heirs of the old regime. The moderates had failed to organize armies strong enough to maintain power. The moderates tried to compromise, but extremists took advantage of their weaknesses. Furthermore, the moderates still had to face opposition from conservative supporters of the old regime.

When the radicals came to power in the four countries that Brinton studied, they shared several traits. Small shares of the population belonged to formal organizations in power, and even fewer participated. Their fewness, devotion to their ideas and submission to their leaders, kept them united. Many common people once politically active soon stopped participating in elections. Except for the American revolution, regimes degraded into dictatorships.


The reign of terror

Under each dictatorship, not only political opponents but also common people risked persecution. The new governments confiscated property, though only the Bolsheviks planned to eventually eliminate all private property. Streets, cities, buildings and events were renamed to fit the new ideology. New governments imposed prohibitions, such as on gambling and drinking, and restricted religious practices. Restrictions on personal freedoms would become more lax when each country had its Thermidor, or period of convalescence from the revolution.


The Thermidor

England, France and the Soviet Union experienced periods when each continued to be ruled dictatorially, but politics also began to resemble a pre-revolutionary state. After the dissolution of the Rump Parliament in 1653, followed by the rule of Oliver Cromwell until 1659, and by the restoration of the Stuarts in 1660, England became a monarchy again. In France, the removal and execution of Maximilien Robespierre in 1794 was the beginning of the Thermidorean reaction. According to Brinton, the New Economic Policy that Lenin initiated in 1922 was the first stage of such a period in Russia. After Stalin defeated Trotsky in the late 1920s, he gained enormous power and the second stage began. During this stage, Stalin resumed some pre-revolutionary policies, such as prohibiting abortions and relaxing restrictions on religion. The American Revolution did not follow this pattern, though Jeffersonians during the Federalist period argued that Washington was a dictator that the Revolution had created.


Overall effects

According to Brinton, though political systems in England, France and the Soviet Union gradually began to resemble pre-revolutionary systems in many ways, revolutions ended the worst inefficiencies and abuses of old systems. New governments were more centralized and responded better to the needs of the average citizen. Outdated practices, such as using the old Julian calendar in Russia, ended.


My analysis

In my opinion, the English and the French revolutions have more similarities, compared with the other two. As Brinton correctly indicates, the American Revolution differed from the other three in that it was territorial and involved no clear division or violent clashes between the moderates and the extremists. The Loyalists supported the British crown. The few leaders who protested the policy of Britain, yet opposed Independence, were incomparable to moderates in other revolutions. For example, John Dickinson argued that the colonists’ liberties were being infringed, but they should not resist violently. He refused to sign the Declaration of Independence. Yet other leaders allowed him to take part in writing key documents. After his death, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “A more estimable man, or true patriot, could not have left us,” reports Jack Rakove, of American History Magazine. In contrast, the radicals persecuted the moderates in England, Russia and France once they seized power.

Brinton argues that the United States has been relatively stable since its independence. However, some historians regard the Civil War as the Second American Revolution. For example, Charles Beard argues that the war of 1861-1865 involved more extensive property expropriation, including $2 billion of slaves, than the war of 1776-1783. The number of people killed in the Civil War was about equal to the number of slaves in 1776, reports Staughton Lynd, of The Journal of Negro History. The American revolution had established the United States as an independent constitutional republic and a federation. The Civil War united the country under a single economic system based on free labor. No other country became split among territorial lines or had to fight slavery after its revolution.

The Russian Revolution caused more terror and more fundamental developments than the other three. A new country - the Soviet Union - was created. After World War II, the spread of Marxism triggered revolutions elsewhere. The Soviet regime was repressive, yet many people feel nostalgia for its extensive welfare benefits and strict legislation. No leader that ruled the other three countries during their revolutions is as controversial as any head of the Soviet state.

Brinton’s analysis pertains in some ways to the collapse of the USSR. The emerging class of entrepreneurs was discontented with the Communist regime. Violent uprisings did occur, but it was the unsuccessful August Putsch of 1991 that revealed the ineptitude of the Communist Party, leading to counter-revolution. Though the leaders who broke up the Soviet Union were in the ruling party, they were younger than the average top-ranking party official. At the time that he was in power, Mikhail Gorbachev (b. 1931), the first and last Soviet President, was younger than most leaders of the Politburo, where the average age of a member was 69.8 years as of 1982, reports Mathis Chazanov, of UPI Archives. Boris Yeltsin (b. 1931), Leonid Kravchuk (b. 1934), and Stanislav Shushkevich (b. 1934) were also comparatively young when they signed the Belavezha Accords that dissolved the Soviet Union in 1991. All three were more radical than Gorbachev.

CIS countries had their own struggles and repressions. Even under the more liberal Yeltsin, Russia cracked down on dissidents, such as during the storming of the White House, the building of the Supreme Soviet, in 1993. This was also a short period of dual sovereignty in Russia, since the Supreme Soviet had appointed Alexander Rutskoy to be acting President, in place of Yeltsin. The more radical Yeltsin won the struggle, though he was already legally in power, unlike in the revolutions Brinton described.

The rehabilitation of the Soviet past in the Russian media, militarization, new tensions with the West and protectionism suggest that Putin’s Russia is undergoing a Thermidor. (In Kazakhstan, the situation is not as clear-cut, since its government is devoted to free trade and remains geopolitically neutral. However, the opposition has been hardly represented in the legislature and some partial reversals of earlier reforms, such as the nationalization of the pension system, did occur.)

The color revolutions in some countries after 2000 continued this counter-revolution. They involved replacing post-Soviet leaders with leaders that attempted or claimed to pursue more liberal policies. As I shall show in the next post, each government that came to power after color revolutions repressed opponents.



Book reviewed

Brinton, C. The Anatomy of Revolution: Revised and expanded edition. New York. 1965.


Other references

Chazanov, M. Arvid Pelsche, the oldest member of the aging Politburo... UPI Archives. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/11/16/Arvid-Pelshe-the-oldest-member-of-the-aging-Politburo/1311406270800/. 1982.

Lynd, S. Rethinking slavery and reconstruction. The Journal of Negro History. 50(3): 198-209. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.2307/2716012.

Rakove, J. The patriot who refused to sign the Declaration of Independence. http://www.historynet.com/the-patriot-who-refused-to-sign-the-declaration-of-independence.htm. American History Magazine. 2010.