It is natural to imitate patterns of behavior, cultural traits or socio-politico-economic ideas. We cannot however assume that imitation may result in developing similar perspectives and patterns of action in different regions or countries. I agree with Bailyn’s understanding of US’s role and image in inspiring European nations’ liberation movements or revolutions for that matter, or with Markoff where he concludes with noted similarities in “constitutional ideas, tactics, issues and organization” of revolutions of 1905, 1906 and 1908 in Russia, Persia and Turkey.[1] But if ideas, tactics, issues and organization were similar, why were not the outcomes? Why do we still have a different graph of democratic development for different countries?
The answer to this question involves three processes that may not follow the same order. The first stage is developing a perception of issues, concerns and apparent solutions within and without; the second stage involves the process of conceiving ideas based on developed perceptions of internal and external conditions, while the third stage involves action through which the perceived conceptions are delivered in practice, thus resulting in outcomes. The important and noteworthy aspect of this process is that while it may seem similar in many ways, they are unique and one of their own kind. This distinguishing factor that I want to emphasize upon is characterized by who, where and when; the emphasis is on phenomena being what they are only in relation to each other.
Who is imitating, developing ideas, making plans, evolving strategies and leading action are a set of vital questions that determine the fate of a revolution, but obviously not the only ones. No matter how much we try and claim, there is nothing as being objective. Unrelated to our collective and social intentions, we tend to develop ideas that are very subjective and therefore individual oriented. The likelihood of the same information viewed in entirely different ways by different individuals or groups is high. A good example is the case of anti-exclusionist movements in the US, where while they were fighting for a common cause, they were different in how they perceived the common cause of equality of rights for all. Both the pro-women’s rights as well as pro-black men rights advocates were looking at the same illusion of “equality”, the only difference was that one group was seeing the duck and the other the rabbit.[2] They simply missed the bigger picture, which if not the case, might have altered the outcomes.
Where the ideas, strategies and action plans are developed for is another crucial factor with its foundations on the internal specificities of every region or country, ranging from cultural, social, economic, political, ethnic, and geographic to historical. Lacking a reasonable understanding of these characteristics or neglecting them at any stage of the process can give an altogether different direction to the whole situation.
And lastly, the time in which the process of practical implementation is to take place is equally important, again and mainly because the progress rate of different areas can be different even given the same timeframe.
What I aim at concluding here is that it is the internal factors and conditions that determine the fate of a revolution than external effects and diffusion of ideas from other countries. Referring to my first reading response, if King Amanullah had not supported democratic elements, they would have experienced the growth rate that they did. If the colonized nations were not oppressed, there would have been no uprisings against the colonizers, no matter how inspiring the image of this or that country was. External factors only play a support role and nothing more. Chicken comes out of an egg, not because a hen sits on it and keeps it warm, but because a living being grows inside, warmth being only a source of support.
If democracy or any other form of social or political reform is to hold grounds in a country, what should be taken into serious consideration are the internal conditions and circumstances of those countries while analyzing the possible future directions. In terms of democratization, whither Afghanistan is a question, the answer to which lies inside the country and not outside.