Comparing International Dimensions of Revolutionary Situations: The cases of Egypt 2011 and Turkey 2013

Abstract

This paper will look at the lessons we can draw from recent uprisings in the Middle East with regard to the theories of revolutions. Within the wider theoretical debate of the causes, processes and outcomes of revolutions the paper will focus on the international political dimensions of the revolutionary situations as distinct from the revolutionary outcomes. The article will disentangle and conceptualize the international politics surrounding these revolutionary situations. The paper will propose a framework of analysis of international politics in revolutionary situations by drawing not only on the Egyptian Uprising but also on the Gezi Uprising in Turkey in the same region. We argue that the role of the international should be neither downplayed nor exaggerated at the expense of domestic agency, and we need to combine structural and agential elements as we build a conjunctional understanding of international factors in revolutionary situations. In studying a region where the involvement of international factors during periods of domestic political change is complex, we need the same complexity in our frameworks of analysis and such frameworks will contribute to comparative studies of revolutionary situations.

Keywords:

• Arab Spring
• Gezi Protests
• revolutionary situation
• international sociology
• foreign policy
• transnational interactions

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. See Salaita (2012); Schwedler, Stacher and Yadav (2012).

2. Al Jazeera’s Turkey correspondent used the term “Turkish Spring” in a live broadcasting from Taksim. Square (Radikal, May 31, 2013; http://www.radikal.com.tr/dunya/gezi_parki_olaylari_dunya_basininda-1135814). So, the discourse on Turkey in those months was reflecting the shock of the repressive nature of the “Turkish democratic model”. We do not claim that there are no differences between the regimes in Turkey and Egypt. Of course, there are important differences in the extent of democratic practices. Although the relation between these differences and the differences in the outcomes of revolutionary situations would be an interesting research topic, since we focus on the international aspect of the revolutionary situations, this article will not expand on these differences.

3. “Revolutions are themselves necessarily international events – in cause, ideology, consequence and outcome. The very recurrence of an international dimension not just in the policies and beliefs of revolutionaries, but also as cause, is often understated in studies of particular revolutions” (Halliday 2001).

4. “It is a relatively easy matter to establish that revolutions have international causes, but somewhat more difficult to establish precisely how this is the case” (Halliday 1999, 163).

5. For a critical assessment of end of revolution arguments see Zivkovic and Hogan (2008).

6. For an excellent overview of the impact of neoliberalism on Egypt’s agricultural and rural relations, see Bush (2011); for an overview of neoliberalism and revolution see Joya (2011).

7. Khalid Ali has the numbers of labour protests for each year between 1999 and 2010. The last 4 years are as follows: in 2007, 692 protests; in 2008, 447 protests; in 2009, 478 protests and in 2010, 530 protests.

8. There is a growing literature on the Gezi protest. See Ercan and Oğuz (2015); Gürcan and Peker (2014); Yörük and Yüksel (2014).

9. A voice challenging this exclusive focus on the political in the revolutionary situations in the Middle East is Hazem Kandil’s 2012 work.