It seems Vladimir Putin has been paying close attention to the recent riots in Nepal. It’s not just because they demonstrate “people power,” but also because, as he puts it, it’s a “revolution of color.”
What’s more worrisome for rulers like Putin is how this rebellion unfolded. Nepal, despite being regarded as stable, experienced an unexpected explosion of unrest.
In retrospect, several systemic issues—what Putin might refer to as “contradictions”—have been at play. Frustration over corruption, nepotism, and unfulfilled promises in Nepal’s democratic process built up over the past year. However, it was the government’s ban on social media that really pushed young people to the breaking point.
Putin knows well that Lenin’s media outlet was called Iskra, which means “Spark.” He’s aware that sparks have been pivotal in many uprisings across Eastern Europe.
For instance, the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine erupted due to electoral fraud, while the Russian Snow Revolution followed suit between 2020 and 2021, along with significant protests in Belarus.
Putin also recalls the fall of the Berlin Wall, which stemmed from a misstep by East German officials, just as Polish solidarity efforts ignited after union activists were unlawfully dismissed in Gdansk. He might be aware that the American Revolution arose from punitive British laws following the Boston Tea Party, while the Iranian revolution had its roots in the tragic Cinema Rex fire in 1978. Moreover, the actions of street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi sparked the Tunisian revolution in 2011.
Sure, not every uprising can be attributed to systematic contradictions and sporadic sparks, but there are enough examples to suggest that both factors often intersect. The tricky part? It’s relatively easy to spot systemic flaws, yet predicting what will ignite a spark is another story. Those sparks can come from various sources—anything from changes in law to personal tragedies—and they can strike unexpectedly anytime, anywhere.
This unpredictability is what makes sparks particularly frightening for authoritarian regimes. On the surface, everything may seem stable, as in the case of Nepal; however, deep-rooted systemic contradictions mean that authoritarian rule is always at risk from a surge of public sentiment. Systematic weaknesses can lessen that risk to an extent, but if contradictions persist—especially if they’re significant and resistant to change, as seen in Putin’s Russia—those risks remain alive and well.
This leaves Russia in a precarious position, vulnerable to sparks that could ignite widespread unrest. Detractors who think Russia is immune to public upheaval might want to reflect on uprisings in Poland, Iran, Ukraine, Belarus, and the broader Middle East before dismissing the possibility of a similar scenario unfolding at home.
It’s important for skeptics to keep in mind Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman’s reference to Dawnbusch’s law, named after a notable economist.
Putin exudes confidence and genuinely seems to believe that Russia has reached a pinnacle of civilization. It’s puzzling how he can maintain such a view while the military grapples with challenges, the economy faces constraints, and society is rife with tensions. This disconnect from reality might mean he’s less aware of emerging sparks when they do appear.
By blissfully ignoring the surrounding issues, Putin and his government are particularly prone to popular uprisings. At some point, Russia could mirror Nepal.
