Populist uprisings and revolutions in general are often romanticized, but there is nothing romantic about them. They are generally violent and ineffective.
[extoc]
Now believe me, I’m not a fan of oppressive governments as I’ve written in many posts I prefer decentralized governments that ensure freedom, but there has been a string of populist uprisings lately; one of the best known as being successful is Egypt–but lately Egypt’s revolution has weakened–the very military officers that helped support the protesters when Mubarak was in charge refuse to let go of the power that they have obtained and so the transition of governments in Egypt is on the brink of collapse. Was this unexpected? Well to many it is shocking, however to those who have studied past populist uprisings, it really wasn’t a surprise at all. Many past uprisings have resulted in a worsening of the situation.
History has taught us the risk of populist uprisings; France’s revolution resulted in a blood bath, followed by a period of chaotic rule and culminating in one of the best known dictators of recent history: Napoleon. The populist uprisings in Russia and China lead to some of the worst dictators of recent history and the deaths of many innocent people under their tyrannical rule.
Another example is Somalia: Somalia is a nation that has been under imperial rule many times and only recently was able to kick out that rule through revolution–unfortunately the end result was a dictator who created a rule far worse than what was experienced under imperial rule.
The name of that dictator is Siad Barre. He gained power in 1969 and did not lose that hold on the nation until 1991. During his rule he suppressed the people and imprisoned or tortured those who disagreed with him. Unfortunately his rule also came to an end through populist uprisings–the result of those uprisings has been constant civil war since 1991; this is a major reason why Somalia is in such poor shape.
The American Revolution Fallacy: People often argue that because of the American revolution was a success, other revolutions should be successful as well. The issue with this premise is that America did not have a revolution in the common sense of the word–those in power in Europe were still in power after the revolution, and the elitist class that was in power in America before the revolution was still in power afterwards; in fact it was the American elitist class that led the war against Europe and so the war should really be categorized as a war of succession. This is in great contrast to revolutions in France, Russia, China, Cuba, Egypt, Libya, etc where an underclass rose up against the ruling class and overthrew the ruling body.
The middle class solution: Supporting a strong middle class on the other hand results in stable change towards a more free environment. The middle class acts as a buffer between the elites and everyone else. This is why kings gave way to parliament in most of Europe over time: first the noble class started the process demanding more freedom from the king, thus the Magna Carta was created; over time a merchant class started to form and from this came increasing freedom from the king–the authority of the king soon waned and a new form of government was created.
The power of the middle class is one of the reasons why the elites in this country have been consistently attacking the middle class for decades. The higher the taxation on the middle class and the more animosity towards the middle class the poor feel, the more likely that the middle class will be destroyed and a revolution will take place firmly establishing a new rule of elites–it’s important to note that the attacks against the middle class are often labelled as attacks against the rich, as is the case with tax hikes. Because of this we must remember that the middle class, even the upper middle class such as small business owners are a benefit to society rather than a deterrent and must be supported.
The second amendment solution:
One of the primary purposes of the second amendment was to create a militia as to reduce the need for a powerful, long term standing army. Only with a powerful army can a corrupt government permanently suppress its people to the point of the people rising up. In that way, the militia, something most people consider to be an instigator of populist uprisings, is actually a deterrent.
Update: The Egyptian government has made some progress in settling matters; we’ll see if the new government can survive and produce a better situation than that which existed previous to the revolution. I wish them the best of luck.