Back when the rise of the Arab spring was just setting in the spring of 2011 there were many who felt that this was an upsurge in the move towards democracy; that the corrupt oppressive regimes of the middle-east were finally to come a halt, that democracy was to prevail and that there would be extensive cultural, social and political ratifications towards the discourse of the Arabian world. It is now clear that this is not the case and that revolutions more often than not merely produce other oppressive dictators capitalizing on the virtue of chaos that resides within a revolution.
This also highlights the implausibility of anarchy; in that it is clear to see within little time in Libya giving a provisional government little power equates to militia operatives monopolizing on nothing other than power. The outcome for Egypt is uncertain, whilst elections are being held protests are spurring out at the ideal that there is no true choice within the electoral system. I suppose in this respect one could argue that Egypt has indeed reached the stage of a Liberal democracy.
The argument that I want to make is that despite the on-going rigorous effort into the uprising and ousting of a government, there is no true hope a revolution truly succeeding should it not have an ideological remise to serge upon. In most circumstances revolutions by means of popular uprising were backed by that of socialism or communist ideals, at least in successful terms, which were led in the form of intellectuals. The Russian Revolution gained the greatest stability through the Bolsheviks and Lenin, The Cuban revolution led by Fidel Castro and Ernesto Guevara, along with the strong support of left-wing ideology leniency of the Mexican and French revolutions
This is the weakness of the Arab Spring, the lack of ideology. There needs to be an ideal towards the replacement of the government in which you aim to overthrow. The idea that an Arab nation can merely adopt the same political discourse of that of a western country without the social and more importantly economic backing to do so is absurd. This is why the aftermath of socialist revolutions can prove to be a success, wealth can be distributed evenly this is the sole objective of the revolution; the overthrow of the current regime is only one aspect.
Firstly we need to look at why a country is oppressed to begin with; this is usually tied into the lack of social and economic developments within a country and the high proportion of uneducated impoverished people within a country, which gives little regulation to the governmental procedures within a country. Traditionally these countries have a long history of be colonized, Libya colonized by Ancient Greece, Numidia, Byzantine, The Ottoman Empire, and the Italian Empire before Libya finally gaining independence in 1952. This was then followed by the British-backed King Idris of Libya, which led to a great deal of economic prosperity for Libya at the price of socioeconomic divide and public discontent. In a coup d’état Muammar Gaddafi overthrew the King with socialist ideals and a promise to produce economic equality. Gaddafi, despite his totalitarian rule Libya was granted a rise in literacy rates from 10% to 90%, free healthcare, free access to education, greater employment opportunities and financial assistance for housing. Here in a twisted irony whilst granting the population the educational ability to have an opinionated regulation of the state, a coup d’état against himself transited. Here however we see no direction for a revolution, no general principle in which the revolution is based upon, inevitably leading to anarchy and chaos, replacing a social reformer who took advantage of his situation, with a revolution without direction. Inevitably without the surge of intellectuals under the ideals of reform and democratic principles, Libya will soon be taken over by another benevolent dictator. One could venture to argue that Libya would be in a better position had they left Gaddafi in power.