Revolutionary Ripple Effects: Do Neighboring Uprisings Influence Democracy?

• A new study explores whether revolutions in one country can lead to increased democracy and reduced inequality in neighboring nations.
• Different types of political upheavals (revolutions, coups, protest-led ousters) have varied impacts on the democratic and egalitarian outcomes of nearby countries.
• The findings suggest that revolutionary threats in neighboring countries can compel elites to implement preemptive reforms, while activists can leverage international solidarity to support democratic movements.

---

Background

Revolutionary changes have been a defining characteristic of the modern world, sparked by wars, crises, and widespread discontent. These upheavals can have profound and far-reaching consequences, shaping the developmental paths of nations like France, China, and Russia.

However, a critical question arises: do the effects of revolutions extend beyond national borders? Can the fervor and consequences of revolutions influence democracy and equality in neighboring countries?

Historically, revolutionaries have debated the potential for revolutions to inspire similar movements abroad. They questioned whether a revolution in one country could trigger reforms in others, especially in terms of reducing inequality and enhancing democracy.

Research indicates that revolutions can have both positive and negative impacts on domestic inequality and democracy:

• Thomas Piketty suggested that the Russian Revolution spurred European elites to implement policies that laid the groundwork for the welfare state.
• Walter Scheidel argued that significant social upheavals are essential for reducing inequality.
• Conversely, Omar Wasow’s research indicates that violent movements often lead to backlash rather than progressive change. (However, Wasow’s findings focus on domestic responses, while this paper investigates the cross-national impacts of revolutions.)

A recent study by Rasmussen and Knutsen examined the influence of the Russian Revolution on European policy changes, using the attendance of various countries at the first Comintern meeting in 1919 as a measure of perceived revolutionary threat. They found that countries facing greater threats from revolutionary movements made more substantial social and labor policy concessions.

Calnitsky and Wannamaker’s paper builds on their work but takes a global perspective, analyzing revolutions, coups, and protest-led ousters from 1800 onwards and their effects on inequality and democracy in neighboring countries.

The concept of “spillover effects” is central to this analysis:

• Traditionally applied to individuals, it suggests that changes affecting one person can impact those around them.
• This idea has been extended to countries, where economic, social, and political changes in one nation can influence its neighbors.
• For example, trade and financial linkages can transmit economic shocks, while migration can affect labor markets and resource distribution.

To date, the literature on revolutions and inequality shows varied results:

• Some studies indicate that revolutions initially increase inequality as elites try to protect their interests.
• Others suggest that in the long term, revolutions create opportunities for redistributive policies and inclusive political systems.

By examining historical data on revolutions and their regional effects, Calnitsky and Wannamaker aim to provide insights into how global events shape domestic social and political outcomes. By studying revolutions as external shocks, their paper aims to clarify their causal impacts on neighboring countries.

Specifically, the paper seeks to understand whether revolutions in one country can lead to increased democracy and equality in neighboring nations. Even more specifically, Calnitsky and Wannamaker are examining whether revolutionary activities can prompt neighboring elites to grant concessions out of fear of similar upheavals in their own countries.

Methods

The study examines three types of political upheavals and their potential spillover effects on neighboring countries:

1. Revolutions: Defined as government turnovers led by rebel forces. The study records 93 instances of revolutions, including the Chinese, Cuban, Iranian, and Nicaraguan revolutions.
2. Coups: Coercive regime changes carried out by government elites. The study records 412 coup years, with notable examples including Iran in 1953, Greece in 1973, and Brazil in 1964.
3. Protest-Led Ousters: Grassroots turnovers initiated by popular protests. The study records 148 instances, including turnovers in Czechoslovakia (1989), Romania (1989), and Tunisia (2011).

These upheaval variables were transformed across time (considering events within the past five years) and space (using regional variables from V-Dem to capture recent upheavals in neighboring regions).

Using these three categories, Calnitsky and Wannamaker propose three main hypotheses:

• H1: Revolutions and Neighboring Effects on Democracy and Inequality: If a neighboring country experiences a revolution, nearby countries will see positive unintended consequences in the form of strengthened democracy and reduced inequality.

The authors argue that when a revolution in a neighboring country results in the overthrow of a government, it sends a strong signal to the elites in nearby countries. These elites, fearing a similar loss of power, may preemptively implement reforms to avoid a similar fate. This could include downward transfers of income and power as a strategy to placate the masses and preserve their own positions. However, an alternative view is that elites might resort to repression to maintain control, which could either maintain the status quo or lead to declines in democracy and equality.

• H2a: Coups and Neighboring Effects on Democracy and Inequality: If a neighboring country experiences a coup, nearby countries will not experience strengthened democracy and reduced inequality.

Coups, typically orchestrated by military elites, are seen as elite power struggles with limited direct impact on ordinary citizens. Neighboring elites may view coups as isolated events specific to the context of elite dissatisfaction and not indicative of broader social discontent. Thus, the response might not involve significant democratic or egalitarian reforms. However, if regional military alliances exist, there could be a spillover effect leading to more coups or “coup-proofing” efforts, potentially resulting in anti-democratic outcomes.

• H2b: Protest-Led Ousters and Neighboring Effects on Democracy and Inequality: If a neighboring country experiences an isolated protest-led ouster, nearby countries will experience moderate increases in democracy and declines in inequality.

The authors suggest that grassroots movements pushing for regime change can be perceived by neighboring elites as a sign of widespread public dissatisfaction. To mitigate the risk of similar uprisings, these elites might implement policy concessions aimed at increasing democracy and equality. Successful protest movements can serve as models for similar actions in neighboring countries, leading to moderate improvements in democratic governance and social equality. However, poorly organized protests might be less threatening, and domestic repression might be more effective in such cases, resulting in varying levels of response from neighboring elites.

Data Sources

This study relies on two primary data sources: the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) database and the Archigos dataset:

• V-Dem Database: The V-Dem database is a comprehensive source of information on democracy and political institutions worldwide. It includes over 350 million data points across nearly 200 countries, covering various indicators of democratic governance and political behavior.
• Archigos Dataset: The Archigos dataset provides detailed information on revolutionary moments and other social upheavals from 1875 to 2015. This dataset was compiled from primary sources such as government documents, news articles, and interviews. Michael Miller expanded this dataset to include data from 1800 to 2013, covering additional instances of social upheaval.

After merging these sources, the final dataset includes dependent variables on equality and democracy, independent variables on revolutions and other political events, and various covariates. The analysis spans from 1800 or 1900 to 2013, depending on the data availability, and includes 171 countries.

The study uses six dependent variables from V-Dem to assess the impact of political upheavals on democracy and inequality:

1. Percent Democracy: A binary measure that captures the extent of democratic attributes within a country, including government functionality, political participation, civil liberties, and election fairness.
2. Electoral Democracy Index: An ordinal measure reflecting the quality and breadth of democratic processes linked to elections.
3. Suffrage: Measures the universal right to vote in political elections, a fundamental pillar of democratic societies.
4. Legal Equality: Assesses the degree to which laws ensure equal treatment and protection against discrimination.
5. Egalitarian Component Index: A composite measure of egalitarian values within society, covering economic, social, and gender equality.
6. Equal Distribution: Measures the even distribution of a country’s resources among its citizens, indicating socioeconomic equity.

The study includes control variables in four categories:

1. Instability Variables: Military dimension index, military regime dummies, and the number of shocks in the last five years.
2. Economic Variables: Log of GDP per capita and economic growth rate.
3. Demographic Variable: Log of population size.
4. Political Variables: Age of democracy, count of prior democratic periods, corruption indicators, proportion of regional democracies, and civil liberties measures.

The analytical process involves using ordinary least squares (OLS) fixed effects regression with clustered standard errors. The models include country fixed effects to account for unobserved heterogeneity and year fixed effects to control for time-varying global factors. The study presents models with and without lagged dependent variables (LDVs) to address potential autocorrelation and debates on their inclusion in time series data.

Results

The study compared various measures of democracy and inequality at three different points: before any recent upheaval, during the upheaval, and five years after the upheaval. Here are the key findings:

1. GDP per Capita: Increased modestly after upheavals, with revolutions leading to the highest increase (15.1%) five years post-upheaval compared to baseline.
2. GDP Growth: Slightly improved after revolutions but decreased following protest-led ousters and coups.
3. Percent Democracy: All types of upheavals led to increased democracy, with revolutions showing the most significant growth (33.7%) compared to baseline.
4. Electoral Democracy Index: Showed a positive trend across all scenarios, particularly after revolutions (31.3%).
5. Suffrage: Increased slightly across all types of upheavals, with no substantial differences among them.
6. Legal Equality: Increased the most following revolutions (8.8%).
7. Egalitarian Component Index: Showed the highest growth after coups (8.0%) and revolutions (7.2%).
8. Equal Distribution Index: Increased most significantly after revolutions (11.7%).

The study used regression models to further explore these relationships, considering the potential spillover effects of political upheavals.

1. Revolutions were associated with statistically significant increases in electoral democracy, egalitarian components, and equal distribution indices. The impact of revolutions diminished slightly when considering a 5-year lag, but still showed significant effects on the equal distribution index.
2. Coups generally showed no significant impact on democracy and inequality, with a few minor exceptions.
3. Protest-Led Ousters led to significant increases in suffrage and egalitarian components, but the effects were mixed across different models and measures.

The authors note several lessons and implications for policy and strategy:

1. The Complexity of External Shocks: Political upheavals in neighboring countries represent external shocks that can influence domestic outcomes. Understanding these influences helps to gauge the scope of local control versus external impacts on domestic politics.
2. Implications for Political Elites: Revolutions in neighboring countries pose a greater threat to political stability than coups or protest-led ousters, warranting more attention and resources. Elites may need to adopt preemptive measures against neighboring upheavals to maintain political control and limit redistribution.
3. Implications for Ordinary Citizens and Social Reformers: Revolutionary moments in neighboring nations can inspire domestic social movements and collective action. At times, supporting revolutions in neighboring countries may be preferable to initiating domestic upheavals.

They also consider strategic responses and considerations:

1. Revolution vs. Protest-Led Ousters: Revolutions tend to pose a greater threat to political elites due to their level of organization and military capacity. Protest-led ousters may be less threatening, with ousted elites more likely to survive and adapt.
2. Internationalism in Social Movements: Social movements may benefit from adopting a more international perspective, aligning with revolutionary movements in neighboring countries to foster democracy and equality.
3. Impact on Different Political Contexts: The effects of neighboring upheavals may vary based on the domestic political context. Democracies with established institutions may channel popular demands more effectively, reducing the likelihood of domestic revolutions. In less democratic or more corrupt regimes, the influence of neighboring revolutions on democracy and equality may be more pronounced.

Contributions to the broader debate on spillover effects include:

1. Potential Self-Defeating Mechanisms: If revolutions lead to reforms in neighboring countries, they may inadvertently weaken the social bases for further revolutions, making them self-defeating in spreading globally.
2. Reformist vs. Revolutionary Strategies: Peaceful reformers might benefit from the existence of revolutionary threats, as they can appear as the more reasonable alternative in times of violent upheaval.

Finally, adverse effects and challenges include:

1. Social Instability and Political Fragmentation: The spread of revolutionary sentiments can lead to social instability, political fragmentation, and humanitarian crises.
2. Political Repression: The possibility of repression in response to revolutionary threats may be rare but severe when it occurs.
3. Cross-Border Influences in Quantitative Analysis: Cross-national time series analyses must account for the influence of one country’s variables on another, recognizing the interconnected nature of global politics.

What Can You Do?

I believe democratic progress around the world should be spread through peaceful protest to the greatest extent possible. Encouraging protest-led ousters in undemocratic nations requires strategic, thoughtful, and sustained actions. Here are ten ways you can support these movements and help foster democratic change:

1. Amplify Voices of Activists: Use social media and other platforms to share the stories and demands of activists fighting for democracy in undemocratic nations. Amplifying their voices can increase international awareness and support.
2. Support Human Rights Organizations: Donate to and volunteer with organizations that monitor and report on human rights abuses in undemocratic nations. These organizations can provide crucial support to protest movements and hold regimes accountable.
3. Engage in Digital Activism: Participate in online campaigns and petitions that pressure undemocratic governments and international bodies to recognize and support protest movements. Digital activism can mobilize global support and put pressure on oppressive regimes.
4. Lobby Your Government: Advocate for your government to take a firm stand against undemocratic regimes. This can include imposing sanctions, providing support to democratic movements, and offering asylum to persecuted activists.
5. Provide Resources and Training: Support initiatives that offer training and resources to activists in undemocratic nations. This can include non-violent protest techniques, digital security, and strategies for building effective movements.
6. Promote International Solidarity: Build networks with activists, organizations, and communities across borders. International solidarity can provide moral support, resources, and a united front against oppression.
7. Organize Local Demonstrations: Hold rallies and demonstrations in your own country to show support for protest movements abroad. These actions can draw media attention and demonstrate global solidarity with those fighting for democracy.
8. Raise Awareness Through Art and Culture: Use art, music, literature, and film to raise awareness about the struggles of people in undemocratic nations. Cultural expressions can inspire empathy and action.
9. Educate Yourself and Others: Stay informed about the political situations in undemocratic nations and educate others in your community. Knowledge and awareness can drive informed action and sustained support for protest movements.
10. Support Safe Communication Channels: Help provide and promote secure communication tools that allow activists in undemocratic nations to organize and communicate safely. This can protect them from surveillance and repression.

By taking these actions, you can help create an environment that supports and sustains protest-led ousters in undemocratic nations, ultimately contributing to the spread of democracy and human rights.

---

What do you think of these findings? Let us know your thoughts in the comments!

Stay informed and inspired! Subscribe to our newsletter, “Society This Week,” and get a free copy of our exclusive report, “Peaceful, Powerful: 225 Nonviolent Tactics for Impactful Activism!”