Ensuring the revolution continues is tough for revolutionaries and citizens who want to replace the old autocratic government. It can be challenging to ensure that citizens and other parties inside and outside the country trust and support the new system.
The main issue lies in the conflict between the power vacuum and the struggles for leadership. Following the downfall of the old regime, a power vacuum frequently arises. Competing revolutionary groups may not be united, leading to internal conflicts or a shift toward authoritarian rule.
In The Anatomy of Revolution, Crane Brinton (1938) stated: “The challenge of establishing a lasting order from the aftermath of a revolution frequently results in internal conflict and ultimately authoritarian rule.” In his observation, Brinton likely highlighted that creating a new and stable system following a revolution can be challenging after the previous one has collapsed.
My research also suggests that various societal factions often hold differing views and vested interests regarding rebuilding, which can lead to disputes. As these disagreements escalate, a single leader or group may acquire excessive authority to restore stability, which often curtails individual freedoms and the functioning of democratic systems.
The absence of institutional capacity poses a significant obstacle for the state, which experienced a revolution to transform the structure and operations of the previous institutions that upheld the former autocratic regime.
Revolutions have the potential to dismantle old institutions without successfully establishing new, stable, and inclusive ones. Without effective institutions, governance may break down or return to centralized control.
Sustaining democratic results relies on revolution and establishing institutions after the revolution, which is one of the biggest challenges for revolutionaries. Although the Arab Spring in Egypt resulted in the removal of a dictator, the absence of consistent institutions led to military control and political decline, which can also be related to the current political situation in Bangladesh.
Although the new government may have greater opportunities for economic growth following the revolution, it still confronts significant obstacles in attracting investments from both domestic and foreign investors.
As a result, disruptions in the state’s economic sectors occur, which not only hinder the state’s economic advancement but also negatively impact the lives of its citizens and lead to social unrest.
Revolutions frequently destabilize economies by disrupting trade, deterring investments, or damaging property. Economic difficulties foster disappointment with the goals of the revolution.
As Barrington Moore Jr (1966) noted, the economic pressures stemming from significant change frequently alienate supporters and strengthen counter-revolutionary forces. In his work, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, he illustrates this with the case of Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution, led by Hugo Chávez. This revolution launched social reforms but ultimately suffered from economic mismanagement and an overreliance on oil, leading to its collapse.
External meddling from interested groups that backed authoritarian governments frequently weakened revolutions threatening their interests. This interference can be military action, sanctions, or backing for counterrevolutionary movements.
Jack Goldstone (2001) critically analyzed revolution and rebellion in the early modern world. He argued that revolutionary governments encounter significant external opposition, which constrains their independence and chances of survival.
For instance, the Cuban Revolution was able to endure primarily due to Soviet support following extensive US attempts to dismantle it (such as the Bay of Pigs invasion and the embargo).
Revolutionary fatigue and the collapse of idealism are frequent problems people notice following a revolution in any country. The primary issue is that revolutions are typically founded on ideals (such as equality, justice, and freedom) that become challenging to achieve.
As time passes, citizens become weary of ongoing instability, and revolutionary leaders may forsake their ideals to maintain control. Hannah Arendt (1963) remarked on revolution that the fervour of the revolutionary spirit often gives way to disappointment as commitments remain unmet.
Evidence shows that the Iranian Revolution (1979), which started with anti-authoritarian principles, ultimately transformed into a theocratic regime characterized by authoritarian governance. It is also a controversial issue whether all Iranians feel and assume that the 1979 revolution created a dictatorial regime.
Significant obstacles often emerge from counter-revolutionary elements and established elites. Displaced elites, military forces, and religious bodies frequently reorganize and resist revolutionary developments. In numerous instances, they manage to reclaim their influence or power.
In his book Age of Extremes, Eric Hobsbawm (1994) indicates that successful revolutions are uncommon because old ruling classes usually possess the means to hinder change. For instance, during the French Revolution, monarchist forces continuously weakened the movement, leading to Napoleon's ascendance.
The question arises as to why numerous strong revolutions have not been sustained in Bangladesh since the nation's independence on December 16, 1971. Examining post-revolution power struggles and authoritarianism is a foundation for understanding the lack of sustainable revolution in an independent Bangladesh.
After the Liberation War of 1971, the revolutionary leadership led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman sought to establish a new state. However, divisions within the party, economic failure, and political opposition resulted in the emergence of a one-party rule (BAKSAL) in 1975. Following his assassination, the country fell into a phase of military rule until 1990.
In her influential academic work, Bangladesh: Promise and Performance, Rounaq Jahan (2005) noted that authoritarian tendencies and conflicts among the elite swiftly overtook Bangladesh's revolutionary hopes. The primary argument presented is that the revolutionary government could not establish democracy effectively, resulting in coups and continued instability.
Military coups and political unrest pose a considerable challenge for the state, which aims to modify its foundational institutions to ensure equal justice for all citizens. As noted by Ali Riaz (2013) in his work, Political Islam and Governance in Bangladesh, he contended that military-led administrations in Bangladesh portrayed themselves as guardians of stability.
Yet, they weakened the process of democratic consolidation. For instance, military leaders employed revolutionary rhetoric to gain legitimacy but failed to implement structural reforms or maintain democracy.
Fragile political institutions in Bangladesh, which encompass political parties, do not have an adequate framework for their political objectives; instead, they prioritize gaining control of the government by any means, ultimately leading to continued poor governance that significantly disrupts citizens' harmony and well-being.
Effective revolutions typically demand strong institutions to convert change into enduring governance. In Bangladesh, partisan politics, corruption, and patronage systems have continually undermined the development of institutions.
The concluding part of this Op-Ed will be published tomorrow.
Dr ASM Anam Ullah (PhD) is an Australian academic, human rights activist, political analyst, and OHS and industrial relations expert.