http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~theed/Cold_War/d_Brezhnev_Era/g%20Carter_77-80/media/d_Iranian_Revolution/hostages.jpg
http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/FacebookEgypt.jpg
The revolutions in Iran and Egypt were led by two main driving forces: a leader and social media. While both revolutions incorporated organization and media to demonstrate their main ideas, Iran mostly relied on one leader while Egypt relied on media to overthrow its government. Which form of communication can more efficiently start a revolution? Will the outcome of the Egyptian revolution be different than that of Iran’s because social media rather than an prominent leader was used to rebel against the government?
Social media is more efficient in creating a revolution, because it is a lot easier to drive people towards a cause when it is done digitally. Technology has thoroughly permeated our culture, and the fact that Egyptian protestors used social media, particularly Facebook, exhibits a drastic change in the way that people overthrow governments. The people of Egypt were (and still are) upset with their government, and social media was a really efficient way to spread ideas right underneath the government’s nose. The “We are all Khaled Said” Facebook page created by Wael Ghonim indicates unity amongst the protestors and the genuine outrage over the lack of freedom in their country. In an interview with CNN Ghonim states it simply, “This is the Internet revolution.” Social media, since a lot of the protests are simply online, also encourages non-violent beliefs. Since protestors can vent online, there is less pressure to kill government officials. This is why the death toll for the Iranian revolution is significantly greater than Egypt’s. Social media can really gather people around a common cause; therefore, a prominent leader is actually relatively unnecessary. As in the case with Iran, the people idolized Khomeini. However, different political groups sprung up, all trying to seize power. Khomeini did not do anything to prevent the violence and chaos that followed. In fact, he actually endorsed controversial events such as the hostage crisis involving the U.S. Embassy. In all, a real leader is not needed in a revolution, because chaos will always naturally follow, as observed in Iran. Instead, unity and communication amongst the people is what really drives the force. Social media was essential to the huge success of the Egyptian Revolution, and it was achieved without a leader.
So what does this mean for the outcome of the Egyptian revolution? The fact that Egypt’s revolution was supported by social media rather than one leader suggests two very different possible outcomes for the country. In one case, the people could easily unite themselves, form a democratic government, and peacefully delegate power. However, the more realistic outcome is that the lack of a true leader will cause different political groups to try and seize power, only creating more chaos. In Iran’s case, having a leader also caused violence and turmoil within the government. Therefore, chaos is inevitable in any revolution whether a leader or social media is used. This contradiction makes it extremely difficult to stage rebellions. However, social media is more preferable because it unites people against one common cause easier and quicker, suggests non-violence, and prevents any domineering dictatorships. It is more likely that social media will lead to non-violent protests and less corruption in the government. Therefore, Egypt’s revolution will most likely be very successful. Some violence will occur as it always does, but the people will install a more democratic system in the end. Overall, social media is the new method of rebellion so it is best to embrace it in its entirety.
