The monarchies and democracy have avoided the worst despite Arab Spring-inspired agitation for change, while Algeria's 1990s blood bath of a campaign against their jihadis may have dampened their enthusiasm for more violence now. So it wasn't universal even in the Arab world. But there is a question of why didn't this wave spread to the biggest example of an authoritarian regime, China (tip to Instapundit)?
The collapse of regimes like Hosni Mubarak’s in Egypt, which many considered “an exemplar of…durable authoritarianism” was a salient reminder to many that such revolutions are “inherently unpredictable.” Before long some began to speculate that the protest movements might spread to authoritarian states outside the Arab world, including China. Indeed, the Chinese government was among those that feared the unrest would spread to China because, as one observer noted, China faced the same kind of “social and political tensions caused by rising inequality, injustice, and corruption” that plagued much of the Arab world on the eve of the uprisings.
Alas it was not to be as the Chinese government has proven far more durable than many of its counterparts in the Arab world. This inevitably raises the question of what factors differentiated the Chinese government from its Arab counterparts in places like Egypt?
The answers don't really make sense since China has problems that plague the Arab world sufficient to cause unrest--and indeed there is already much unrest that remains localized; and the strength of China's internal security apparatus isn't the answer since some of the Arab states wracked by revolt were assumed to have strong security forces that made them immune to revolution.
Funny enough, it may be that the vast scale of China, where the mountains are tall and the emperor is far, has made the relative autonomy of regional and local governments--despite the Communist Party's monopoly of power at the center--seem like the only problem that matters. The distant Communist Party in Peking is often seen as a potential ally of the protests:
As a consequence, much like the Middle East, the years 2011 and 2012 have been ones characterized by very high levels of protest activities in China. However, because of the decentralized nature of the Chinese state, these battles have been ones won and lost by claimants contesting local officials rather than challenging the regime itself.
Not that I didn't wonder if the unrest could spread to China. And the Chinese government worried about just that--but their worry predates the Arab Spring, Remember the SARS thing? (which I had noted in an old post about that article on my original site), where "mass incidents" are a feature of China.
If the Chinese people ever start to associate the central government with their grievances, then the whole house of cards could come crashing down.
Of course, there are lots of authoritarian governments that could have been rocked by the example of the Arab Spring. Focusing on China may make sense because they are the biggest example of an authoritarian regime and because the impact of their fall would be so great, but lots of dogs did not bark all over the world.
The fact remains that this was an Arab Spring. I can be forgiven for wondering if the focus on China is a way to ignore that the Iraq War initiated by George W. Bush may have a role in explaining the Arab Spring. We may have to ponder whether the Iraqis are right that they had a role in inspiring other Arabs to hope for more than authoritarian misery or the alternative of Islamist misery.
Sure, the end results may be more autocracy or Islamist misery, but the latter wasn't the rallying call of the Arab Spring as people rallied or revolted against the former. And even the victory of new despots in the short run may not be the end of the story that unfolds over many decades. How long did it take France to get real democracy after their 18th century revolution? How long did it take America, for that matter? Don't despair. Work the problems presented by this opportunity!
And as I've asked many times over the years, if democracy is so unimportant in the Arab world, why does every despot hold sham elections? Why not just call what they do "authentic" as part of their cultural heritage and tell us to shove that Western election stuff?
We upset the status quo in the Arab world by pulling down the leading Arab despot of our era and insisting on democracy as the replacement. How could this not have repercussions? Mark my words, "George the Liberator."
