As popular revolution continues to sweep the Arab world, commentators have searched for comparisons with earlier revolutionary outbreaks in history. One choice has been the revolutions of 1848 in Europe.
In a few short months in that year a wave of liberal and democratic revolution swept across western and central Europe, touching states in France, Germany, Italy, and Austria. In a few places rulers lost their thrones, such as King Louis Philippe in France, but in all the places touched by the revolutionary flame, the old regime had to make rapid concessions to the demands of the revolutionaries, even in reactionary Prussia and Austria.
However, just as the waves of the sea rapidly lose their force as they sweep across the beach, so the revolutionary fervour of 1848, seemingly so irresistible, soon began to dissipate. By 1850 most of the concessions which the revolutionaries had won from the old regime had been lost. The reactionaries were back in control almost everywhere. The revolutionaries of 1848 had lacked strong leadership, clear aims, and adequate military force. It proved all too easy for their enemies to exploit the divisions among them, whether political or racial.
France had been the first country to begin the revolutionary outbreak in 1848, but even in the summer of that year, the conservative elements among the new regime were shooting down the workers in Paris. Louis Napoleon, nephew of the great Napoleon, was made president of the new French republic, but within a few years he had seized power and turned himself into Emperor Napoleon III, although still claiming to be a 'liberal' emperor.
The state which seemed doomed by the impact of the 1848 revolutionary wave was the multi-national Austrian empire. Young emperor Franz Josef had only just entered into his inheritance, but now it seemed he would lose it all, as revolutions broke out in Vienna, Prague, Budapest, and in his Italian possessions. Yet he was to survive these upheavals thanks to the loyalty of most of the imperial army, the exploitation of racial divisions among the revolutionary groups, and the intervention of a foreign army sent by the arch reactionary Tsar Nicholas I of Russia to help the Austrians crush the most serious revolt in Hungary. By 1850 the Austrian empire was back under the control of the government of Franz Josef, and he would remain emperor until his death in 1916.
Of course a historical comparison between events today in the Arab world and those in Europe more than 150 years ago cannot be carried too far. Nevertheless it seems not unlikely that the Arab revolutions will produce more sound and fury than lasting political change. Although leaders like Ben Ali and Mubarak have been driven out, the military and most of the old regime politicians largely remain in control of states like Tunisia and Egypt. Even Muammar Gaddafi may emulate Franz Josef and emerge victorious from a seemingly impossible situation. The emperor was in large part saved by foreign intervention; Gaddafi may be saved by a failure of the international community to intervene in support of the revolutionaries in Libya.
If the current Arab revolutionary wave does collapse like that of 1848, what will this mean for the West? Trying to make up for their decades of support for Arab dictators, Westerners have been shrill in their praise for the popular uprisings in the Arab world, although these words have not been followed by any action. If the much-trumpeted 'new Arab world' fails to emerge and the old regime withdraws its concessions and largely resumes power, will not the Arab people be disillusioned and even more angry? Despite the claims of some alarmist commentators, radical Islamists have not featured greatly in the present revolutionary outbreaks. However, if the promises of freedom and democracy for the Arab masses are not met, then angry young Arabs are going to be much more receptive to the anti-Western message of Islamic militants.
Words and no action from the West may turn the new Arab revolutionaries against the United States and its allies, but will a restoration of the old regime do the West much good either? The Arab dictators consider, not unreasonably, that they have been deserted by their former Western supporters in their hour of need. If the groups that supported the dictators, chiefly the military and the conservative politicians, manage to retain power in most of the Arab countries disturbed by revolution, will they ever trust the West again? Once the tame vassals of the United States and its allies, they seem more likely to take a more independent line in the future on issues such as Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran.
For Arabs, the current revolutionary movement may not in the end achieve any major lasting political changes. However, for the West its relations with the Arab world cannot help being substantially altered whichever side eventually emerges victorious. Neither the old regime nor the new revolutionaries are likely to trust the West when its words of support remain just empty promises.
