“Beware, every one of your friends, and do not trust any of your brothers; for every brother stumbles another, and every friend slanders."
(Book of the prophet Jeremiah 9: 4)
Today it has become fashionable to talk about color revolutions. Despite the fact that the concept of the revolution itself stuck in the head of many at the level of quotations from the "Short Course in the History of the CPSU (b)". Although, by the way, everything has changed. However, hardly anyone would argue with the fact that the basis on which he appeared was. So let's try to consider this phenomenon in detail. That is - what, how, when and why became this very "color revolution".
Here they are, what kind of "revolutionaries" there are. The grandmother needs to think about the eternal, ventilate her white slippers and pray to God to accept her sinful soul into her bright villages, and she must go there too … to rebel, forgetting that there is no power "as if from God." Photo: Uraldaily.ru
So, the very term "color revolution" is nothing more than a tribute to our era, which loves catchy and catchy names. It began to be used only at the beginning of the 2000s, and earlier, political scientists had enough of those definitions that existed before. The color revolution also has nothing to do with the velvet revolution. In a narrow sense, this is the process of dismantling the communist system in Czechoslovakia in November-December 1989, which was carried out by bloodless methods. But it is also applied as a broader concept, and then all the events that took place in the socialist countries in Eastern Europe and also in Mongolia, where in 1989-1991, during their course, political regimes of the Soviet type were liquidated by peaceful by.
Today, the "color revolutions" refer to a very specific form of mass street riots and protests of various social strata of the population, which are supported by foreign non-governmental organizations, and usually end with a change in the political regime that existed in the country without the participation of the military. At the same time, there is a change in the ruling elites and very often a change in the political course of the new government.
I must say that today we already have many examples of rather specific performances in different countries that fall under this definition. But their diversity is such that experts are still arguing about which "active" event in the country can be considered a real "color revolution". For example, in Yugoslavia there was a “revolution” called the “bulldozer”, in Georgia there was its own “Rose Revolution”, everyone has heard about the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine. But in Kyrgyzstan there was a "Tulip Revolution". And they all belong to the color revolution. The Portuguese "Revolution of Carnations" happened on April 25, 1974, when a bloodless coup took place in this country in the same way, which destroyed the fascist dictatorship in the country and replaced it with a liberal democratic system. But this example is just not indicative, since the Portuguese coup was carried out by the military, and in the "color revolutions" the main participants are civilians and, first of all, the active opposition youth. The coup that took place in Iran on August 19, 1953, during which Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh was overthrown as a result of actions that were directly sanctioned by the United States, cannot be attributed to the "color revolution". Although there is also such a point of view that this particular coup, in principle, can be regarded as a prototype of future “color revolutions”.
Consider the chronology of the "color revolutions":
2000 - The Bulldozer Revolution took place in Yugoslavia.
2003 - The Rose Revolution takes place in Georgia.
2004 - the famous "Orange Revolution" takes place in Ukraine.
2005 - similar to her "Tulip Revolution" in Kyrgyzstan.
2006 - an attempt to organize the "Cornflower Revolution" in the Republic of Belarus.
2008 - an attempt to organize a "color revolution" in Armenia.
2009 - Another attempt at a "color revolution" took place in Moldova.
Here you should digress a little from practice and turn to theory. The well-known Leninist formula about the "top and bottom", as well as exacerbated above the usual level of poverty and disasters. But … the limitations of his formula for color revolutions are obvious. More generalized and suitable for the situation with the "color revolutions" is the "formula" of George Orwell, which he outlined in his dystopia "1984". Its essence is in the presence of three social strata in society: the upper ones, who own power and 80% of property, the middle ones, who help the higher ones, have knowledge and dream of taking the place of those at the top, and the lower ones, who have neither property nor knowledge, but full of dreams of justice and universal equality and brotherhood. It happens that the higher ones “lose their grip on life”: they degenerate, drink too much, sink into debauchery, begin to believe that “everything is permitted for them”. Then the averages understand that “their hour has come,” go to the lower ones, tell them that they know how to make their dreams come true and invite them to rallies, demonstrations, and even to barricades. The lower ones sing a song invented for them by the middle ones: “Everything that holds their thrones / The work of the working hand… We ourselves will fill cartridges / We will screw bayonets to our rifles. Let us overthrow with a mighty hand the fateful oppression forever / And we will hoist the Red Banner of Labor over the earth! " and die of bullets, hunger and cold, but in the end the middle ones win, the higher ones are replaced, and the lower ones … are thrown back to where they came from, only slightly improving (well, so as not to be very indignant) their position. Not immediately, but gradually it reaches the lower ones again that something is “not right” here, as they were promised, and the “new middle ones” begin to accumulate strength for the next “final leap upward”. And here, if someone helps them with money … they may well try to bring the masses to the streets. Their time has come!
And here we can recall the famous "Monroe Doctrine" (named after US President James Monroe, 1758 - 1831). According to it, in July 1823, the United States proclaimed its right to establish the political regimes it needs in all lands "south of the Rio Grande", both in Central and South America. This is how the messianic model of the world order was adopted, called "Pax Americana" (Latin for "American world") - that is, a world arranged according to the American model. Monroe, however, had in mind mainly interference in the affairs of the "Americans" of the European powers. However, he admitted that the United States could also interfere in the affairs of independent American states in response to the "intrigues" of the insidious Europeans. That is, if "they start", then we can. But how can we distinguish this very interference on the part of the Europeans and, most importantly, assess its harmfulness to the interests of the United States? The fact is that this approach allows, in principle, even any trade agreement to be defined as damaging the interests of the United States, because the main slogan was: "America for the Americans." That is, trade with us, buy weapons from us … and all the others are "undesirable people in America!"
By the way, it was American political scientists who were the first to define “color revolutions” and considered their content. Thus, one of the fundamental works on this topic was the book of the American professor of political science Gene Sharp “From Dictatorship to Democracy. Conceptual Foundations of Liberation”, published back in 1993. In it, he sees them as a fight against the dictatorship. The book details how to make such a revolution using the simplest methods. It is hardly surprising that for young revolutionaries this book has become a handbook and a kind of “bible”. The oppositionists of Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan and many other countries read it and found "consolation" in it.
Sociological research, for example, conducted by Freedom House (abbreviated as FH, Freedom House), a non-governmental organization headquartered in Washington, which annually prepares an international survey of the situation with political rights and civil freedoms all over the world). All countries of the world "Freedom House" subdivides into three categories: completely free, free partially and completely not free. There are two important criteria by which countries fall into one of these categories:
- the existence of political rights of citizens, the possibility of their free expression of their will during the election of state leaders and in the formation of decisions that are important for the country;
- the existence of civil liberties (freedom to disseminate one's opinion, personal independence from the state, which in practice also means the independence of the media and, of course, reliable protection of the rights of various minorities).
The indicators are evaluated on a decreasing scale from 1 (maximum) to 7 (minimum).
According to this organization, the number of non-free countries in the world is frighteningly high and, in principle, one cannot but agree with this. But it cannot be considered a serious source of information about “free” and “not free” countries. The fact is that its budget is 80% funded by the US government. For the same reason, this organization is often accused of lobbying the interests of the White House, interfering in the internal affairs of other states and … publishing biased reports. For example, the President of Kyrgyzstan Askar Akayev stated directly that a Tulip Revolution was being prepared in his country and Freedom House was the main supplier of funds for the opposition. Of course, one can also say that it is the "dictator" who is speaking, and the "people" of his country want freedom. It's like that. Yes, but how to measure the level of "dictatorship" and "degree of popular discontent" in this country? And most importantly, can the situation be corrected by such … "interventionist methods"?
On the other hand, another thing is also clear, namely that "color revolutions" always arise where there is a serious internal political and economic crisis in the country. This, so to speak, is the main and understandable, one might say, natural reason. But the second can not be classified as "natural" in any way, because it includes the desire of such a world superpower as the United States to promote its foreign policy and economic (which is natural) interests.
There is also a third reason, now connected with the interests of Russia: what can we oppose the two above-mentioned reasons on our part?
Well, and finally, the fourth reason is economic problems: the world's population is growing disproportionately, soil fertility is decreasing, poverty of a large mass of the population, due to the above reasons, naturally increases. The absence of a developed middle class in many countries, which is the guarantor of social stability, also affects. That is, an efficient economy is, first of all, the key to solving most of the complex social problems. By the way, this is why people from all over the world leave (or try) to leave for the USA. And the economy of this country is efficient! Ordinary people do not care how it is provided there, it is much more important for them “what”. So, by hook or by crook, they are striving there and … they are doing the right thing, because "the fish is looking where it is deeper, and the person is looking for where it is better!" And citizens of Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan or the same Ukraine go to work in Russia for the same reason. For them, this is bread, the same as for the Russians in the United States.
A very serious problem for many countries is that their governments do not know how to establish a dialogue with the opposition, but ignore, or sometimes simply suppress it. Using an allegory, the threat of revolution in the country is like a disease in a person, the “symptoms” of which show that something is clearly wrong with his body. And if you do not pay attention to the “symptoms” and firmly “suppress” them, that is, the country's leadership will not heal the “organism”, but will drive everything into the depths, the “disease” will only progress and develop rapidly. And then she will certainly come out, but it will be much more difficult to correct her situation.
It is clear that the countries that spread ideas about freedom (in their understanding) are also by no means altruists. Everything according to the Bible: "I give you, so that you also give to me!" As the director of the Albert Einstein Institute, Gene Sharp, says, there are a number of points that are directly related to foreign interference in the internal affairs of a country:
- So, they tolerate, or even help dictatorial regimes in order to ensure their economic or political interests.
- Foreign states may well betray the people of the country where the next "color revolution" is being held, not keeping their obligations to provide them with assistance in order to achieve something else, more significant for them, a goal that arose unexpectedly.
- For some foreign states, action against a dictatorship is just a way to gain economic, political or military control over other countries.
- Foreign states may well interfere in the affairs of other countries with positive goals, when the internal resistance to the existing regimes in them has already quite shaken the dictatorships there, and their “animal nature” has been revealed to the international community.
