Historical revolutions often centered on charismatic central figures such as Lenin, Mao Zedong, and Castro.
However, in the second half of the 20th century, a wave of protests and revolutions emerged that did not originate with a specific leader, nor did new central figures emerge as the revolution progressed.
This phenomenon, described in the political science literature as horizontal movement or leaderless resistance, is one of the most important developments in modern political history.
But can leaderless revolutions win, and if so, how exactly do they do so?
What does “leaderless revolution” mean?
A leaderless revolution does not necessarily mean that there are no influential figures involved in the protests, but it does mean that decision-making is not centralized.
There is no formal hierarchy and, most importantly, the legitimacy of the revolution comes from below through collective action, rather than from any particular person or party.
Moreover, the coordination of activities in such revolutions takes place primarily through social networks and other groups.
This revolutionary model is usually a reaction to historical mistrust of charismatic leaders who, after victory, became themselves sources of repressive power.
Tunisian revolution: rifts within the security forces
Tunisia’s revolution is the first such protest within the broader Arab Spring movement and a classic example of a leaderless uprising. In the events in the North African country that began in December 2010, protests were not initiated by any particular political party or led by recognized leaders.
The revolution was sparked by street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-immolation in protest of fruit confiscation, government corruption and unemployment. Within a short time, a network of young people, trade unionists, lawyers, and social media users joined this popular uprising.
Popular protests lasted for 28 days and ultimately forced President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who has ruled the country for more than 23 years, to dissolve his government and parliament, relinquish power and flee to Saudi Arabia.
One of the main factors in the protesters’ success in overthrowing the government was deep rifts within the security forces, as well as deep and widespread social discontent. Moreover, not having a single revolutionary leader was seen as a concession to the revolutionaries, as it did not give the government the opportunity to take action to eliminate them.
Despite the lack of leadership, the role of trade unions, including the Tunisian General Syndicate of Workers (UGTT), was crucial during the protests.
Although the revolution was successful, the lack of leadership and a clear plan for the post-Ben Ali era led to ideological conflicts, economic crisis, and institutional weakness, plunging Tunisia into a period of instability and ultimately leading to a return to a form of authoritarianism.
The events in Tunisia showed that while a leaderless movement can overthrow a ruling regime, a new regime cannot be built without a clear political project for the future.
Egyptian Revolution: Different Groups, Single Goal
The Egyptian revolution consisted of a series of protests, marches, and civil disobedience that were inspired by the success of the Tunisian revolution and took place within the framework of a movement called the Arab Spring.
The Egyptian protests that began in January 2011 were also inspired by Serbia’s student-led “Atpor” (resistance). The movement began peaceful protests in 2000 that, with military support, led to the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic’s government.
Egypt’s protests, fueled by widespread use of Facebook and Twitter, ultimately led Hosni Mubarak to step down as president for the first time in 30 years and hand over full power to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, made up of the military’s top commanders.
This revolution had two important features. First, the Egyptian military did not support Hosni Mubarak during the revolution, and Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik Zaki was forced to resign less than a month after Mubarak’s resignation.
Second, the protests succeeded in uniting disparate social groups with different agendas around a single goal, even though they lacked collective leadership or charismatic spokespeople with whom the protesters could identify.
Egypt’s strengths
With so many viewpoints and different groups at work, the lack of a specific leader from a particular intellectual perspective could have been a significant weakness to the continuation of the Egyptian revolution, and it became a strength of the Egyptian revolution.
Egyptian blogger and TV presenter Ahmed Asiri makes a different point.
“The regime was unable to control us due to lack of leadership,” he said. “In particular, leaders may be intimidated, coaxed, or engaged in negotiations in which the regime makes concessions to save itself.”
Thus, a leaderless movement was formed in Egypt, and in the process, everyone united around a very simple but radical demand for the immediate abdication of Hosni Mubarak.
Nevertheless, the protesters’ activities were disciplined and organized. Six groups, including the April 6 Youth Movement, the Furious Youth Movement, and Mohamed ElBaradei’s Alliance for Change, informally consulted with each other on how to hold the rally in Tahrir Square.
But the lack of clear leadership ultimately became a problem. After Mubarak’s fall, organized forces that had played a peripheral role in the revolution, such as the military and the Muslim Brotherhood, rapidly filled the power vacuum.
As a result, although the revolution was successful, the revolutionaries were expelled and a dictatorship was once again established.
Egypt serves as a warning that if one leaderless movement fails to introduce political representation soon, others will intervene.
Ukrainian Revolution: Hope and Violence in the Center of Kyiv
Ukraine’s Euromaidan revolution is another example of a movement without a leader. The movement lasted over three months, from November 2013 to February 2014.
The revolution began with a message from journalists calling for a rally on Independence Square (Maidan Nezerezhnosti) in central Kiev to protest the government’s refusal to sign the Association Agreement and Free Trade Agreement with the European Union.
Although this revolution had no leader, organized activity emerged quickly and spontaneously among various groups, working together primarily on social media.
Planning all the relevant elements to continue the protest, from food to medical care, created a strong sense of community among the protesters.
The conflict reached a climax in February 2014, when police launched a brutal crackdown on protests, killing dozens of people between February 18 and 21, many by police snipers.
A European-brokered peace deal between the government and protest leaders envisaged the establishment of a transitional government and early elections, but protesters later occupied government buildings and pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych fled to Russia.
Advantages and disadvantages of leaderless revolutions
One of the most important characteristics of such a leaderless revolution is its relative irrepressibility, since the removal of individuals does not destroy the movement.
Another feature is the wide range of public participation. In such revolutions, even collective action takes precedence over organization and leadership, and in fact, legitimacy comes not from institutions and programs but from presence on the streets.
Another benefit is that, at least in the short term, the risk of creating a personal dictatorship is reduced.
One of the most important weaknesses of a revolution without a leader is that the lack of a central figure makes it impossible to make quick decisions at critical moments.
Another problem with such revolutions is that there is a lack of political representation to negotiate or participate in the process of transfer of power, and there is always a risk that the revolution will be taken over by entrenchment forces.
For this reason, some revolutions have failed not because of the protesters, but because of a lack of strategy in the post-revolutionary political arena.
The existence of a revolutionary leader, or its appearance during the revolutionary process, can to some extent guarantee the post-victory situation and also prevent the resurgence of authoritarianism and the occurrence of chaos after the revolutionary period.
But whether a leader was present from the beginning of the revolution or a leader emerged during the revolution, one thing is clear: if the opposition fails to organize, the ruling forces will soon too.
A leaderless revolution is a product of an age of mistrust. They can shake up and even overthrow the ruling regime, but their victory will be short-lived unless they can bridge the gap between people’s power and the post-revolutionary political structure.
