With the successful protests in Egypt, resultant resignation of President Hosni Mubarak, and the impending collapse of Gaddafi’s 40 year reign in Libya, viewers around the world are wondering what the future holds for these, and other, ancient nations. The removal of the Mubarak and Gaddafi regimes could very well lead each country to either feast or famine; that is, a stable democracy that will thrive for decades to come, or a new governing body more corrupt than the one it replaces. But, what are the factors that determine whether a country’s revolution will set its future narrative in glory or tyranny? It would seem that in revolutions of the past, the sound commitment to a rebellious nation’s historic cultural identity is a key factor in the creation of both a moderate and successful new era. That if a nation chooses not only to revolt against its own government but its very identity, then often that nation falls into despair or, at the very least, fails to create anything stable or worthwhile. This notion–what I label the cultural vacuum phenomenon–may very well decide the path of a future North Africa and Middle East.

The United States: Moderation and Success

The separation of the American colonists from their British government in 1783 is arguably the most successful revolution in history. Although much blood was shed in the eight years of fighting between Minuteman and Redcoat, the colonies successfully severed ties from Great Britain without any great travesty to become 13 independent and united states.

One of the reasons for such a decisive departure was that America’s revolution was inherently moderate and did little to genuinely threaten the global status quo. Yes, the revolution chipped away at Britain’s hegemony over the world, but it was an aging hegemony that began to decline with the hefty costs of the Seven Years War just a decade or so prior. Yes, the creation of the United States did usher in a new era of Democracy and modernity, but the power of monarchs in Europe had been slipping since the 1600s with the execution of absolute ruler Charles I.

Furthermore, the colonies’ fight to be to a unified nation was moderate because life in post-Britannic America changed little. There was now a President Washington and a Federal Government but the people still uttered the same English words, ate the same foods, wore the same clothing, celebrated holidays in the same fashion and, most importantly, were still committed to a free market economy. These cultural and economic traditions were directly inherited from Britain and so America’s break was much less drastic than it could have been. Simply put, America did not create a cultural vacuum by revolting against itself. Newly independent Americans respected their British roots for the most part and continued business as usual, only with new management.

There were fringe Francophiles (Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were some of the more notable ones) who held more hostility towards, and called for a greater departure from, British culture and the island nation itself, but they were less popular in major American cities and, furthermore, changed their minds once revolution in France took a much more tyrannical turn. By remaining similar to the largest power in the western world, the United States was able to flourish and to later become the dominating power that it would be in the twentieth century.

France: A Vacuum For Tyranny

Inspired by the recent success of the American revolution, in 1789 the French revolted against King Louis XVI and faced a much harder struggle than their American brethren. For one, the United States rebelled against a power both foreign and distant. The French faced a tyrant right in their own homeland; an inept ruler whose mismanagement starved the people and yet, still had plenty of supporters willing to defend the Ancien Régime.

Difficult or not, the public succeeded in changing Louis’s absolute rule to that of a constitutional one, similar to Great Britain’s monarchy. However, the French revolution soon diverted from moderation and the revolutionary elite began calling for Louis’s arrest and eventual execution.

The execution of Louis XVI horrified the western world, especially the United States–whom Louis supplied with substantial financial and military support in their earlier revolution. The shocking regicide raised a red flag that France was looking for something beyond jobs, food, and the moderation of the king’s power. Soon, dialogue in revolutionary France changed from embracing freedom to that of ushering in a new era of man, an era that would completely break from anything and everything associated with the past.

Herein was the problem. France, by revolting against a French monarch and French aristocracy–institutions that had been in power since the fall of Rome–was revolting against itself. France essentially began cutting off its nose to spite its face; a new governing body was established to root out and destroy any sympathizers to the nobility, any traitors to the revolution, and anyone who disagreed with France’s new, frightening direction. France was slowly deconstructing every aspect of its past identity and soon created a void to be filled by anything with power.

At the head of the cultural deconstruction was a modest looking lawyer named Maximilien Robespierre. He stressed that secret, internal enemies were much more of a threat than the several other foreign nations waiting to invade France. He, and the rest of the revolutionary extremists, spared no one who was suspected of threatening the revolution. Executions, often but not always by guillotine, were wanton; it is estimated that between 16,000 and 40,000 French men, women, and even children were executed during France’s Reign of Terror. Maximilien Robespierre, with his demagogic speech and call for butchery, was one of Europe’s very first dictators in the modern style; Robespierre was the ultimate in predecessors to Nazi Germany’s Adolf Hitler.

By destroying everything and anything that had to do with its pre-revolutionary history–the indiscriminate destruction of beautiful castles, manors, churches and monasteries, the execution of anyone who looked at the past in even a marginally favorable manner, even the creation of a new calendar and religion–France opened itself up to tyranny. Robespierre, by wiping France’s cultural slate clean, had allowed for the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte: a delusional, egotistical, and Romanophilic leader who declared himself “Emperor” and engaged the world in a series of catastrophic wars. After Napoleon’s fall, France was victim to many more crises of cultural identity: reinstating the Bourbon monarchies, creating several Republics, reinstating Bonaparte successors to the Imperial throne, and so on. In fact, France’s current and Fifth Republic has only existed since 1958. One cannot help but wonder if France will see a future Napoleon IV or a Louis XXI somewhere down the line.

The Future of North Africa

It is unclear what the future holds for Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and the other nearby African and Middle Eastern nations currently struggling with tyrannical government. Egypt has shown signs of both sides: on one hand, the people showed a great respect for their nation by cleaning up after themselves and guarding their museums and artifacts from looters. Noble actions such as these are the definition of preserving a nation’s identity during a time of great turmoil. On the other hand, the currently-in-power Egyptian military has warned the people of  ”internal enemies” conspiring against the revolution–words that directly echo the sentiments of a blood-thristy Robespierre. Also troubling is the recent removal of by-laws from the Muslim Brotherhood’s English website. These by-laws preached for the creation of a new civilization and world order. Worrying statements that indeed suggest the future for North Africa could be dim.