Gorbachev allowed, but did not ignite, the Revolutions of 1989

I believe that Gorbachev played a vital role in the occurrence of the 1989 revolutions, but his role was limited to allowing the revolutions to happen, rather than starting them. My main argument is that the people would have rebelled earlier, if not for the staunch no-tolerance policies of Stalin and Brezhnev. Without a more tolerant leader like Gorbachev, these revolutions never have been given the opportunity to manifest.

Under Stalin's five year plans, Soviet Union individuals experienced no increase in their quality of life, even though the nation as a whole was getting richer (910). If the people under Stalin had a low quality of life, and were given no freedoms under an oppressive government, why didn't they protest and rebel? One reason: because Stalin did not allow the people to protest. He immediately stifled any threats to his power, and as a result, the fear that he created effectively caused little public opposition to his regime. In other words, people were forced, by their fear, to follow him.

After Stalin's death and from 1953-1964, Kruschev assumed the role of leader of the USSR. Kruschev, unlike Stalin, allowed free speech and allowed people to rebel---to an extent. As a result of this, the people's unhappiness (as a result of low quality of life and lack of freedoms) manifested in rebellions in Poland and Hungary. One can see in Kruschev's rule how a leader's tolerance for opposition directly leads to the degree of rebellion. Kruschev allowed a little bit of 'wiggle room' for the protestors, and as a result this fermented protests.

However, Kruschev was quickly replaced by Brezhnev and his much more oppressive regime. Under Brezhnev, the people's quality of living was no worst than under Kruschev's, the only difference is that they experienced less freedom to protest. Under Brezhnev, the only public opposition to his regime came in Czechoslovakia in 1968. Under Kruschev or Gorbachev, this protest movement might have gained momentum and might have spiraled into a revolution in 1968; however, Brezhnev quickly invaded Czechoslovakia to halt any proceedings.

Finally, when Gorbachev replaced Brezhnev in the 1980s, he again allowed freedoms of speech. Suddenly, the people's unhappiness, which had been in place since Stalin, was allowed to manifest into open protest and subsequently revolution. The main reason why the 1989 revolutions occurred is not because there was a sudden change in attitude in 1989; it was because Gorbachev ALLOWED them to occur. The main point about all of this is that if the people had a chance in the 1960s to rebel, which would have occurred potentially if Kruschev had never left office, the people would have publicly protested and probably would have ignited rebellions. Throughout Stalins rule and through to Gorbachev's rule, the people held basically the same attitude: they were unhappy because they were poor and they had little freedom. Naturally, people would protest given this situation; it is just a matter of how tolerant the leader is in allowing protest. Under Stalin, the oppressed and poor people would definitely have liked to remove Stalin from power, but their fear and Stalin's terror prevented them from doing so. The reason why the 1989 revolutions happened at the time they did is because Gorbachev gave them the means to do so.

Predicting the Egyptian Revolution

The Iranian Revolution ultimately resulted in a conservative government being installed. A dislike for the Shah and a desire to unseat him initially united the people of Iran, but that is where the shared viewpoint ends. After the Shah left Iran in 1979, Iran was deeply divided on how to manage the vacated government. There was a prolonged conflict between the People's Mujahideen (liberal communists: desired a secular government), Moderates (middle: desired a government with Islamic influence but democratic) and the Conservatives (desired a pure theocracy). However, by the end of 1979, Khomeini (leader of the conservatives) had seized complete power for life, and thus, created an Islamic Republic that is still the current government of Modern Iran.

Many experts compare the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 to the Iranian Revolution of 1979. I am not writing to compare the two revolutions, but I wish to share a prediction concerning the outcome of the ongoing Egyptian Revolution. I predict that the Egyptian Revolution will not result in a theocracy like the Iranian Revolution, but it will ultimately lead to a moderate government. I make this prediction based on the evidence of one article I read that examined the role of Sunnis versus Shiites on the results of the Iranian and Egyptian societies.

According to Joe Schlesinger, "Sunnis consider their relationship with God direct and imams are generally seen only as prayer leaders", while "The Shia, on the other hand, have a hierarchical structure and their imams are considered community leaders". Egyptians are predominantly Sunni Muslims while Iranians are Shiites. Because Sunnis place less importance on the role of imams in society, it is logical that Sunnis would have a larger distinction between mosque and state. This contrasts with a Shiite society that places incredible emphasis on imams on society. In a Shiite society, imams would have more power and leadership because they would have to make that vital connection between God and his people. On the other hand, Sunnis are more apt to directly speak with God, and therefore have less need of an imam in society; therefore, the imams are not as powerful in a Sunni nation.

This has impact in the Egyptian Revolution because, obviously, the people involved are Sunni Muslims. I predicted that the Egyptian revolution will not end in a theocracy, because, among other reasons, the Sunnis will be less inclined to elevate an imam, or any other religious leader, to power. Unlike Khomeini who was an imam himself and easily convinced the Shiite Iranians to elect him leader, an Egyptian conservative leader will have a much harder time convincing the people to elect a religious figure to power.