Chapter Two: Theoretical Approaches to Revolution and Changes

Revolutions are complex social phenomena, and various theoretical frameworks have emerged
over time to explain their causes, development, and outcomes. These theories attempt to answer
fundamental questions about why revolutions occur, who participates in them, and how they
reshape societies. Below is an exploration of the most prominent theoretical approaches to
revolutions and social changes, including their etiology (causes), and the key distinctions
between them.

1. Etiology of Revolutions

The etiology of revolutions focuses on identifying the underlying causes of revolutions,

examining the convergence of economic, social, political, and psychological factors that lead to
widespread social upheaval. These factors typically interact to create a situation in which the
existing political, economic, and social order is no longer sustainable, leading to collective
action. Most contemporary theories emphasize that revolutions are a response to a breakdown in
societal structures, often triggered by crises or widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo
(Hernandez, 2021). The causes of revolutions, as outlined in recent works, reflect the
complexities of modern societies, where shifts in power, inequality, and perceived injustice play
central roles.

Economic hardship is one of the most prominent causes of revolutions in contemporary

theories. As the gap between the rich and poor widens, economic inequality leads to frustration
and disillusionment, particularly among the lower classes. This disparity is compounded by
economic crises, such as recessions or hyperinflation, which make basic necessities harder to
attain. According to recent studies, economic inequality can cause feelings of relative
deprivation (Zhao & Lee, 2020), where individuals perceive themselves as being deprived
compared to others, creating a sense of injustice. When these feelings of deprivation are
widespread, they can serve as a catalyst for collective action and rebellion. This theory has been
applied to understand the Arab Spring of 2010, where economic hardship and inequality played a
key role in sparking protests across the Middle East and North Africa (Aslam & Noor, 2019). In
addition to economic factors,
Political repression remains a significant driver of revolution. When governments suppress
political dissent, limit civil liberties, and restrict freedom of expression, it fosters an environment
of resentment and anger. Theories on political repression focus on the idea that when citizens are
denied meaningful avenues to voice their grievances, they turn to more radical measures,
including revolt (Gilmour, 2021). Political repression can manifest in various ways, from
violent crackdowns on protests to the denial of basic democratic rights. Research indicates that
such repression often leads to greater public mobilization and support for revolutionary
movements (López & Wright, 2020). For example, the 2019 Hong Kong protests were fueled in
part by the government's attempts to suppress political dissent and limit freedoms, leading to
mass mobilization and demands for reform.

The role of social psychology in revolutions has gained increasing attention in recent years.
Social psychological theories suggest that collective emotions, such as anger and frustration, play
a crucial role in the mobilization of revolutionary movements. As societies face rising inequality
or political injustice, people experience emotional distress that can fuel collective action (Chong,
2022). Psychological theories such as the “J-curve” theory, proposed by Davies (1962), have
been revisited in contemporary research to explain how rising expectations followed by sudden
declines in living standards can provoke social unrest. For example, protests in countries like
Venezuela in the 2010s were driven by a mix of economic decline, political repression, and the
emotional responses of citizens who had previously experienced greater prosperity. Another
critical factor in the etiology of revolutions is state failure. Modern theories argue that when
governments become unable to maintain order or provide basic services, they lose legitimacy in
the eyes of the public. State failure can be triggered by various factors, such as corruption,
ineffective leadership, or military defeats. Once the state's ability to control society is weakened,
revolutionary movements can more easily gain traction. Recent examples, such as the civil wars
in Syria and Yemen, demonstrate how state failure—through internal conflicts and the collapse
of institutions—can create a power vacuum, providing an opening for revolutionary movements
and insurgencies (Gleick, 2021). The inability of a government to maintain control, especially
during times of crisis, leads to disillusionment and, ultimately, widespread demands for change.

Finally, elite divisions and elite failure also contribute to the causes of revolution. When elites
are divided or fail to maintain their hold on power, it can lead to a breakdown in political order
and create an opening for revolutionary movements. This concept has been explored in
contemporary research, which examines how elite fragmentation, whether due to ideological
shifts, corruption, or internal power struggles, can destabilize regimes. The fall of the
government in Sudan in 2019 is an example of elite divisions, where internal fractures among the
ruling class contributed to the overthrow of President Omar al-Bashir (Mahmoud, 2021). Such
internal conflicts make it difficult for elites to maintain control, and they can lead to broader
societal unrest. In general the etiology of revolutions involves a complex interplay of economic,
political, social, and psychological factors. Recent scholarship emphasizes that revolutions are
not solely the result of political repression or economic inequality, but rather arise from the
broader context of social and psychological conditions, elite divisions, and state failure.

2. Social Psychology

Social psychology theories focus on the individual and collective psychological factors that drive
people to engage in revolutionary activities. These theories emphasize the role of mass
mobilization, the formation of collective identities, and emotional responses to perceived
injustice. According to social psychologists like James C. Davies (1962), revolutions often arise
when there is a gap between people's expectations and reality—particularly when societal
conditions improve but then suddenly decline, creating a "J-curve" of rising expectations
followed by disillusionment. The theory posits that the psychological response to such
deprivation—particularly among the middle class—can lead to the desire for political change.
Social psychology also explores how shared grievances and collective emotions, such as anger
and frustration, can unite individuals into mass movements, as seen in the Arab Spring uprisings
of 2010-2011 (Kriesi, 2015).

Social psychology theories provide valuable insights into the individual and collective
psychological factors that drive people to engage in revolutionary activities. These theories
emphasize how emotions, collective identities, and perceptions of injustice can motivate large
groups of people to mobilize and demand change. Central to social psychology's approach to
revolutions is the idea that the emotional and psychological responses of individuals within a
society play a critical role in the emergence of mass movements. Researchers within this field
have focused on how perceived deprivation, shared grievances, and collective emotions, such as
anger and frustration, serve as powerful motivators for collective action and rebellion. One of the
most prominent theories in social psychology regarding revolution is the "J-curve" theory
developed by James C. Davies (1962). According to Davies, revolutions occur when there is a
significant gap between people's expectations and their reality, particularly in times of economic
or political progress followed by sudden and severe decline. The "J-curve" refers to the upward
slope representing increasing societal expectations, which is then followed by a sharp downturn
when conditions worsen. The psychological impact of this sudden reversal creates a sense of
frustration and disillusionment, particularly among the middle class, which may have previously
experienced a period of improvement. According to this theory, the perception of relative
deprivation—the sense that one is worse off compared to others or compared to one's prior
state—can create psychological distress that pushes individuals toward revolutionary action.
Davies’ theory suggests that the middle class, often seen as the stabilizing force in society, is
particularly vulnerable to this type of disillusionment, as they have the most to lose when their
expectations are abruptly dashed.

Recent scholarship has expanded on Davies' work, emphasizing how collective emotions shape
revolutionary movements. Social psychologists argue that collective emotions, such as anger,
resentment, and frustration, play a crucial role in the formation of a collective identity that
unites people with shared grievances. These emotions are often amplified by perceived political,
economic, or social injustices that individuals feel powerless to address through conventional
means. Kriesi (2015), in his analysis of the Arab Spring uprisings, shows how emotions such as
indignation at political repression and economic inequality contributed to the mass mobilizations
across the Middle East and North Africa. These emotions were not only driven by individual
dissatisfaction but were collectively shared by large segments of the population, creating a sense
of solidarity and a unified desire for political change. This collective mobilization of emotions is
what drives individuals to come together, often forming mass protest movements and, in some
cases, leading to revolutions.

Social psychology also highlights the importance of collective identity in revolutionary

movements. Collective identity refers to the way in which individuals define themselves as part
of a larger social group that shares common goals and values. Social movements, including
revolutionary ones, are more likely to succeed when participants feel a strong sense of belonging
to a collective group that is united by shared grievances and a vision for change. Research shows
that this collective identity is essential for sustaining mobilization efforts over time and
maintaining unity among diverse groups that might otherwise be fragmented (Tarrow, 2011).
During the Arab Spring, for instance, protesters in countries like Tunisia and Egypt rallied
around shared identities as victims of corruption and political repression, strengthening the
resolve of protestors and enabling them to challenge entrenched political systems. This sense of
group solidarity is reinforced through social networks and communication channels, which are
vital in organizing protests, spreading ideas, and galvanizing action.

Moreover, social psychology has also explored how individuals' psychological states and
emotions are shaped by perceived injustice. When individuals or groups perceive that they are
being unfairly treated or denied their rights, this sense of injustice can fuel both individual and
collective anger, which in turn drives revolutionary movements. For example, the 2011
Egyptian Revolution was partially driven by frustration over widespread corruption, lack of
political freedoms, and the perceived illegitimacy of President Hosni Mubarak’s regime. Social
psychologists argue that such perceptions of injustice—whether based on political oppression,
economic inequality, or social exclusion—are key psychological drivers of mobilization.
Additionally, emotional contagion—the process by which emotions spread within a group—
plays a significant role in the dynamics of revolutionary movements. In highly emotional
environments, such as during protests or uprisings, individuals often "catch" the emotions of
those around them, amplifying feelings of anger, defiance, and hope. This emotional contagion is
particularly evident in large crowds, where a single act of defiance can quickly escalate into mass
mobilization, turning isolated incidents of discontent into a full-scale revolution. This was
notably the case during the Arab Spring, where protests spread rapidly across the region, fueled
not only by political and economic factors but also by a shared emotional response to the
injustices faced by the population (Tarrow, 2011).

So, social psychology provides essential insights into the emotional and psychological dynamics that
underlie revolutionary movements. Theories like the "J-curve" and the role of collective identity and
emotions help explain why people come together in mass movements to demand political and social
change. Social psychology underscores the importance of perceived deprivation, shared grievances,
collective emotions, and the formation of a collective identity in mobilizing individuals toward
revolution. As contemporary case studies, such as the Arab Spring, demonstrate, the psychological factors
at play in revolutions are just as important as the political, economic, and social conditions that create the
environment for change.

3. Theory of Mass Society/Political Conflict Theory

The Mass Society Theory and Political Conflict Theory both argue that revolutions are rooted
in the tensions between different social groups, particularly the growing disconnect between the
state and its population. Mass society theory, influenced by the work of sociologists like Émile
Durkheim (1893), asserts that modern societies, in their process of industrialization and
urbanization, create atomized individuals who are disconnected from traditional forms of social
organization (such as family and local community). This disconnection creates conditions ripe
for revolution, as individuals feel alienated and powerless, pushing them to seek dramatic change
(Arendt, 1951). Political conflict theory, on the other hand, focuses on how power struggles
between elites, class conflicts, and the competition for resources within society lead to
revolutions. It suggests that groups who feel excluded or oppressed are more likely to mobilize
and challenge the existing political order (Piven & Cloward, 1977).

The Mass Society Theory and Political Conflict Theory both explore the social dynamics that
contribute to revolutions, but they do so through different lenses. Mass Society Theory
emphasizes the alienation and disconnection of individuals from traditional social structures,
while Political Conflict Theory focuses on class struggles, power imbalances, and resource
competition between different social groups. Mass Society Theory is rooted in the idea that
modern, industrialized societies create a sense of alienation among individuals. As societies
become more urbanized and industrialized, traditional forms of social organization, such as
family structures and local communities, begin to erode. Sociologists like Émile Durkheim
(1893) originally discussed how this breakdown of social bonds could lead to a sense of anomie,
or normlessness, where individuals feel disconnected from the larger social fabric. In recent
scholarship, Mass Society Theory has been updated to reflect how modern mass media,
globalization, and the breakdown of community institutions have further exacerbated this sense
of alienation (Putnam, 2020). Individuals in modern societies are often left feeling powerless and
isolated, leading to a heightened desire for change. According to scholars such as Gellner
(2018), this alienation can be a catalyst for revolutions, as individuals seek to redefine their sense
of identity and purpose, particularly when they feel excluded from the political or economic
mainstream. Arendt (1951) also supported this notion, arguing that alienation often pushes
individuals to form revolutionary movements as they search for new ways of organizing society.

On the other hand, Political Conflict Theory focuses on the power struggles between different
social groups, particularly the ruling elites and marginalized groups. According to this theory,
revolutions are most likely to occur when oppressed or excluded groups mobilize to challenge
the power structures that control access to resources. Piven and Cloward (1977) suggested that
revolutions arise from the collective action of disenfranchised groups who are seeking to
overthrow an unjust system of governance. More recent work by Tilly and Tarrow (2015)
underscores the idea that revolutions often emerge as a result of political opportunities that
arise when elites are unable or unwilling to suppress opposition effectively. This approach
emphasizes the role of class conflict, inequality, and resource distribution in shaping
revolutionary movements. When certain groups, such as the lower classes, ethnic minorities, or
economically disadvantaged sectors, feel that their needs and demands are being ignored, they
may resort to protest and rebellion in an effort to restructure the political order (McAdam,
Tarrow, & Tilly, 2019). Unlike Mass Society Theory, which centers on the psychological and
emotional disconnection of individuals, Political Conflict Theory highlights the structural
conditions within society that foster conflict. It is not only the alienation of individuals but also
the competition for power and resources that drives social unrest. When political and
economic power is concentrated in the hands of a small elite, and the majority of the population
experiences systematic exclusion, mobilization becomes a natural response (Hernandez, 2022).
For example, the rise of social movements during the 2019 Hong Kong protests and the 2011
Arab Spring can be understood through Political Conflict Theory. In both cases, inequality,
political repression, and the perception of being excluded from decision-making processes fueled
widespread discontent and eventually led to large-scale protests aimed at challenging the existing
political systems (Zhao & Lee, 2020).

While both theories argue that social discontent is central to revolutions, they diverge in their
explanations of the nature of the discontent. Mass Society Theory focuses on the individual’s
alienation, whereas Political Conflict Theory emphasizes group-based mobilization driven by
collective grievances. Both theories, however, agree that economic disparity, political
exclusion, and social fragmentation contribute to the creation of revolutionary movements. The
Arab Spring serves as an example where both mass alienation and political conflict were at
play. People across the Middle East and North Africa were alienated from their governments due
to economic hardship, corruption, and lack of political freedoms. At the same time, they were
part of larger political movements that aimed to challenge elite control over political power and
resources (Mylonas & Mavris, 2019). Mass Society Theory and Political Conflict Theory
offer valuable perspectives on the causes of revolution. Mass Society Theory emphasizes the
alienation of individuals in modern societies, leading them to seek radical change, while Political
Conflict Theory focuses on how structural inequalities and elite oppression drive collective
action. Both theories highlight the importance of social disconnect—whether individual
alienation or group exclusion—in triggering revolutions. Understanding these theories together
helps illuminate the complex dynamics behind revolutionary movements in the modern world.

4. Functionalist/System Value Consensus Theory

The Functionalist or System Value Consensus Theory, rooted in the work of Talcott Parsons
(1951), views revolutions as disruptions of the societal equilibrium, caused when the social
system fails to integrate all members of society effectively. According to this theory, each
society has a set of shared values, institutions, and norms that contribute to its stability.
However, if these values are no longer widely accepted or if the system is unable to
accommodate societal demands, tensions arise. In the case of a revolution, the societal system
reaches a crisis point, and people may demand a new order to restore stability. This theory
suggests that revolutions are often the result of failed adaptations to new social needs or external
pressures. It contrasts with conflict-based theories by highlighting a breakdown of consensus
rather than a direct struggle for power.

The Functionalist or System Value Consensus Theory, rooted in the work of sociologist
Talcott Parsons (1951), offers a unique perspective on revolutions. Unlike conflict-based
theories that focus on power struggles between different social groups, Functionalist theory
emphasizes the importance of social equilibrium and the role of shared values, norms, and
institutions in maintaining societal stability. According to Parsons, societies are structured
systems where each part (e.g., institutions, social roles, and values) works together to ensure the
overall stability and cohesion of the society. In this view, revolutions are seen as disruptions to
this equilibrium, occurring when the existing social system fails to integrate all members of
society effectively. At the core of the Functionalist theory is the idea of value consensus, the
set of shared beliefs and norms that hold society together and guide the behavior of its members.
These values are typically represented by social institutions such as the family, education, the
economy, and the political system, all of which contribute to the smooth functioning of society.
However, the theory suggests that if the values and norms that underpin a society no longer
enjoy widespread acceptance or if the social system becomes increasingly unable to
accommodate the evolving needs and demands of its members, tensions will emerge. When these
tensions reach a breaking point, societal instability can result, and revolutionary movements may
arise as people seek a new social order that better aligns with their needs and expectations.
Parsons (1951) argued that revolutions are often triggered by a crisis of integration, where the
societal system’s inability to adapt to new social, political, or economic conditions leads to a
breakdown of the established consensus. This breakdown may occur when a society faces
external pressures (such as wars, economic recessions, or technological changes) or internal
conflicts (like rising inequalities or shifting values). As the system fails to absorb and address
these challenges, the legitimacy of existing institutions begins to erode, and people may begin to
demand a new system that can restore stability and provide solutions to emerging problems.

For example, the French Revolution (1789) can be analyzed through the lens of the
Functionalist theory. The French monarchy’s inability to manage the social, political, and
economic inequalities of the time, combined with the rising influence of new Enlightenment
ideas, led to a breakdown in the social consensus. As the monarchy failed to integrate the
demands of the lower classes and the emerging bourgeoisie, tensions escalated, culminating in
the revolution. The Functionalist theory would argue that the revolution was an attempt by
society to restore equilibrium by establishing a new order that better reflected the values and
needs of the time. In contrast to conflict theories, which emphasize class struggle or elite
competition as the driving forces behind revolutions, the Functionalist approach focuses on
the failure of social systems to adapt to changing conditions. In this sense, revolutions are seen
less as a direct confrontation between opposing groups and more as a response to the failure of
the system to maintain consensus and social cohesion. The theory suggests that revolutions are
adaptive responses, aiming to restore equilibrium to society by creating new structures or values
that better address the needs of the population. While this theory offers important insights, it has
also been critiqued for its overly optimistic view of societal stability and its assumption that
revolutions are always an attempt to restore order. Critics argue that not all revolutions lead to
stability or a return to equilibrium, and that some revolutionary movements can result in further
social disruption and conflict. Moreover, the theory's focus on consensus overlooks the role of
power struggles and inequalities that are central to many revolutionary movements. Despite these
critiques, the Functionalist or System Value Consensus Theory remains an important tool for
understanding how revolutions can arise from the inability of a social system to adapt to change
and the breakdown of societal consensus.

It provides a framework for understanding revolutions as responses to the failure of societal

systems to integrate changing values, demands, and conditions. According to this perspective,
revolutions occur when social systems break down, and people demand a new order to restore
equilibrium. This theory contrasts with more conflict-based approaches by focusing on the
failure of consensus rather than direct power struggles. While it provides valuable insights into
the causes of revolutions, it is also important to consider the complexities of power dynamics and
social inequalities that may also drive revolutionary movements.

5. Structural Theory/Marxist Theory

The Structural or Marxist Theory of revolution, rooted in the ideas of Karl Marx and his
followers, provides a framework for understanding the causes and dynamics of revolutionary
change. This theory posits that revolutions are not random or sporadic events but rather the
inevitable outcome of deep-seated contradictions within the economic and social structures of
society. According to Marx (1848), the fundamental contradiction exists between the forces of
production and the relations of production. The "forces of production" refer to the means and
technologies of production, such as factories, machinery, and labor, while the "relations of
production" refer to the social relationships that define how production is organized, such as the
division between the bourgeoisie (the capitalists who own the means of production) and the
proletariat (the working class who sell their labor). Marxists argue that the capitalist system
inherently fosters inequality because the bourgeoisie, who control the means of production,
extract surplus value from the proletariat, whose labor generates wealth (Marx, 1848). Over time,
as capitalism evolves, it exacerbates these inequalities and deepens contradictions within the
system. These contradictions manifest in various forms, such as economic crises, social unrest,
and class struggles. Economic crises, for instance, occur when the capitalist economy
experiences periods of overproduction, leading to unemployment, poverty, and widespread
dissatisfaction among workers (Friedman, 2019). As these contradictions intensify, the
proletariat becomes increasingly aware of their exploitation. Marx (1848) believed that through
this heightened awareness, or "class consciousness," the working class would recognize that their
suffering is not an individual misfortune but a result of the systemic nature of capitalism. This
realization would lead them to unite and overthrow the capitalist system. The revolution would
aim to dismantle the bourgeoisie's control over the means of production and establish a new
system based on collective ownership and democratic control, ultimately leading to the creation
of a classless society (Marx, 1848).

Marxist theory has been instrumental in understanding various revolutionary movements

throughout history. For example, the Russian Revolution of 1917, led by figures like Vladimir
Lenin, was heavily influenced by Marxist thought, as the Bolsheviks sought to overthrow the
Tsarist autocracy and establish a socialist state based on the principles of Marxism (Friedman,
2019). Similarly, the Cuban Revolution of 1959, led by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, was
grounded in Marxist ideology, as the revolutionaries sought to eliminate the economic
exploitation of the working class and establish a socialist government (Friedman, 2019). At its
core, the Marxist theory of revolution emphasizes the centrality of class conflict in the
development of society. It suggests that the material base of society—the economy—shapes the
political and ideological superstructure, meaning that political changes are often the result of
shifts in economic power (Marx, 1848). Marxists argue that without addressing the structural
inequalities in the economic system, political change is often superficial and cannot lead to
lasting transformation. This perspective challenges other theories of revolution, such as those
that focus on ideas, leadership, or external factors, by emphasizing that the root cause of
revolutionary change lies in the economic system and class struggle (Marx, 1848).
6. Elite Consensus Theory

The Elite Consensus Theory proposes that revolutions occur not due to mass uprisings or
widespread popular dissatisfaction, but because of a breakdown in the consensus among the
ruling elite. This theory emphasizes that the political, economic, and military elites, who
typically maintain control over the state, may experience disagreements about how to preserve
their power. These divisions within the elite can result in the collapse of the regime, as unity is
necessary for maintaining the status quo. Scholars like Samuel Huntington (1968) have argued
that revolutions are more likely when elites fail to maintain unity, and the political system
becomes gridlocked, making reforms impossible. The breakdown in elite cohesion weakens the
state's ability to control the population and manage dissent, which can create an opportunity for
revolutionary movements or political changes to emerge.

Huntington (1968) argued that the state’s failure to adapt to internal conflicts, especially when
elites can no longer agree on how to manage political, economic, or social challenges, opens the
door to revolution. In such scenarios, the ruling elite’s inability to provide leadership can
undermine the legitimacy of the regime and cause a loss of authority among the populace. In
these cases, while the masses may be dissatisfied, it is the elite factions’ inability to present a
unified front that creates a power vacuum, often exploited by revolutionary forces. A prime
example of elite consensus breakdown leading to revolution is the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The
fall of the Pahlavi monarchy in Iran was largely due to divisions within the elite. As Keddie
(2003) notes, different factions within the ruling class—ranging from military leaders to
conservative clerics—had divergent interests and failed to present a cohesive response to
mounting popular unrest. This lack of elite unity weakened the monarchy’s authority and paved
the way for the overthrow of the Shah’s regime, ultimately resulting in the establishment of an
Islamic Republic under Ayatollah Khomeini.

The theory also suggests that such breakdowns in consensus do not always result in revolution
but can lead to significant political changes. When the elites are divided, reforms may become
impossible, and the regime’s inability to address the needs of both the elite and the broader
population can erode its legitimacy. Over time, this erosion leads to instability and provides the
necessary conditions for alternative political movements to gain traction (Huntington, 1968).
In recent years, the Elite Consensus Theory has been applied to various instances of political
upheaval. For example, the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, which led to the ousting of President
Hosni Mubarak, has been analyzed through the lens of elite fragmentation. As political elites and
military leaders became increasingly divided over how to respond to protests and the demands of
the population, the state was unable to maintain control, resulting in the collapse of the regime
(Tadros, 2014). Similarly, in Venezuela, ongoing tensions within the ruling elite, particularly
between military leaders and political figures, have contributed to the country's ongoing political
and economic crises (Corrales & Penfold, 2015).

The Elite Consensus Theory posits that revolutions arise not from mass uprisings but from a
breakdown in unity among the ruling elite. When elites fail to maintain consensus, the state's
ability to govern weakens, and this creates an opening for revolutionary movements or political
change. Historical examples, such as the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the 2011 Egyptian
Revolution, illustrate the consequences of elite division and the collapse of regimes under such
conditions (Keddie, 2003; Tadros, 2014).

7. Strategic or Contextual Theory

The Strategic or Contextual Theory of revolution focuses on the role of specific strategies
employed by revolutionary actors, as well as the broader political, social, and historical context
in which revolutions occur. This theory suggests that revolutions are not inevitable but are
contingent upon certain conditions, such as state weakness, elite divisions, and the availability of
resources for mobilization (Tilly, 2003). In this view, revolutions are shaped by the timing of
events, the leadership provided by revolutionary groups, and the opportunities for collective
action that emerge in moments of vulnerability or crisis.

A central component of this theory is the role of political entrepreneurs—individuals or groups

who can mobilize resources, frame grievances, and inspire collective action. These actors take
advantage of opportunities created by state weakness or elite fragmentation and are able to rally
support for revolutionary change (McAdam, Tarrow, & Tilly, 2001). In essence, revolutions are
seen as products of specific strategies and opportunities, and successful uprisings often depend
on the ability of revolutionary leaders to act at moments when the state is particularly vulnerable,
or when the public is dissatisfied with the status quo. Tilly (2003) emphasizes that revolutions
occur when states face significant challenges to their power, such as economic decline, military
defeat, or political fragmentation. These challenges can create openings for revolutionary
movements to gain traction, but it is the strategies of revolutionary actors—how they frame
grievances, mobilize supporters, and capitalize on moments of political crisis—that ultimately
determine the success or failure of a revolution. In other words, the social and political context in
which revolutions unfold is crucial, and revolutionary leaders must be able to exploit
opportunities when they arise.

The Arab Spring uprisings, which began in 2010, provide a clear example of how context-
specific strategies and opportunities for mobilization can lead to revolutionary outcomes. The
widespread dissatisfaction with authoritarian regimes across the Middle East, combined with the
emergence of social media as a tool for organizing and spreading information, created an
environment in which protests quickly gained momentum (Tufekci, 2017). Activists were able to
leverage social media to organize demonstrations, communicate grievances, and mobilize large
numbers of people, which contributed to the rapid fall of long-standing dictatorships in Tunisia,
Egypt, and elsewhere. The role of political entrepreneurs and the ability to act quickly during
moments of state vulnerability were key factors in the success of these uprisings. The theory also
highlights the importance of leadership in revolution. According to McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly
(2001), revolutionary leaders must be able to interpret the political context, frame the issues in a
way that resonates with potential supporters, and act strategically to seize moments of
opportunity. These leaders often play a pivotal role in articulating the collective grievances of the
population, framing them in a way that encourages mass mobilization, and leading the charge at
critical junctures when the state is most susceptible to challenge.

The Strategic or Contextual Theory of revolution argues that revolutions are not inevitable but
are shaped by the strategies of revolutionary actors and the specific political and social context in
which they unfold. Timing, leadership, and the ability to mobilize support during moments of
state vulnerability are key factors that determine the success of revolutionary movements. The
Arab Spring revolts serve as a powerful example of how these elements—particularly the use of
social media to mobilize dissent—can lead to successful uprisings against authoritarian regimes
(Tufekci, 2017).