Revolutions and Revolutionaries

11 February 2010



Google
WWW Kensington Review

Iran Marks Revolution, South Africa Marks Mandela's Freedom

Today is the anniversary of two rather important dates in world history. Both are about revolutions, and how the men and women who lead them decide whether they will replace the ancien regime with something better or something worse. In Iran, the mullahs and their minions are celebrating the 31st anniversary of the Iranian revolution. In South Africa, they are observing the 20th anniversary of Nelson Mandela's release from prison.

That the Shah of Iran was an iron-fisted dictator is probably not hard to admit. His SAVAK secret police kept an eye on everyone in Iran and on Iranians abroad. In 1975, he made his constitutional monarchy a one-party state. Anyone who refused to join his Rastakhiz [Resurrection] Party was considered a traitor. In his defense, however, he worked to modernize Iran, make it richer, and diminish the traditionalism of Iran (not least of which was giving women the right to vote when Iran still had multiple political parties). A benevolent despot, but a despot nonetheless.

The Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini was another kind of beast altogether. He led his revolution from exile. His speeches were smuggled into Iran on cassette tapes, and in them, he spoke of the need to purge Iran of all unIslamic ideas. These he conflated with modernity. To him, the clergy must rule under Sharia law. In short, he was an intolerant charismatic who would use force as his first option. The histories of revolutions have names like Robespierre, Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Khomeini belongs there. Their revolutions created monstrosities.

In South Africa, a different kind of revolution occurred, one that began 20 years ago today. President F. W De Klerk realized that the apartheid regime he headed had no future. So, he freed Nelson Mandela from prison after 27 years. It could have been a time for vengeance and violence. Mr. Mandela certainly had reason to be more than a touch upset.

Unlike Khomeini, and a bit more like George Washington, Mr. Mandela opted for a humane revolution in which the people would be allowed to follow their own path rather than one chosen for them by a revolutionary clique. Enemies were forgiven. Granted, they had help. General Washington might have been made king, but it is hard to believe Messrs. Adams, Jefferson and Franklin would have allowed it to occur. And Mr. De Klerk deserves some credit for giving up a throne of bayonets. Both the American and South African revolutions are far from over, but because they are founded on the well-being of the people rather than a rigid ideology, one has hope for them. The same is not true of the Russian, Chinese and Iranian revolutions.

The lesson is that the outcome of the revolution depends on the character and ideals of the revolutionaries. The people need to be careful about their revolution's leaders when they take to the streets.

© Copyright 2010 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.

Kensington Review Home