By Behr
Historical comparisons are often a foolish game. There will always be incompatibilities. However I think there is some merit to this one.
1848
As you might remember from grade nine Socials, 1848 is known as the year of revolutions. Over the course of those twelve months, every major European nation fell victim to insurgency. Centuries old monarchies and recent reactionary regimes were shaken by demands for democracy and social justice.
The new urban class blockaded the streets of cities like Paris, Vienna, Venice, and Prague. Europe’s traditional plutocracy was given a trial by fire. Now there are obviously some serious differences between 1848 and the revolutions in the Near East, but there is at least one thing you would be wrong to overlook.
Many in the media (particularly those south of the border) are consumed with the fear that worse regimes may replace the overthrown dictators in the Mid East. The Iranian Revolution has been used as a key example. But to me this looks much more like 1848 than 1979. A particular ruler (like the Shah) is not being rejected. Rather a whole generation of autocrats is being attacked. The protests in Iran suggest that theocracies have becomes just as clichéd and outdated in the Near East as other tyrannies, like Mubarak and Gaddafi.
2011
At the end of 1848 the rebels had achieved few of their goals. But 1848 made change inevitable. By the turn of the century, the working class had earned the right to vote in most of Northern Europe. The antediluvian monarchies of the continent were winding down.
Even this far into the year, I think the revolutions of 2011 have a pretty good track record. I don’t know what will happen immediately. There remains the possibility that new governments will turn out to be flawed. But I think it’s important to remember that 2011 has set this region down a certain path. 1848 demonstrates that it will be difficult to turn around.
