I am copying the following from Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow (Harari, Yuval Noah; Random
House to share with you…
On 21 December 1989 Nicolae Ceauşescu, the communist
dictator of Romania, organised a mass demonstration of support in the centre of
Bucharest. Over the previous months the Soviet Union had withdrawn its support
from the eastern European communist regimes, the Berlin Wall had fallen, and
revolutions had swept Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria and
Czechoslovakia. Ceauşescu, who had ruled Romania since 1965, believed he could
withstand the tsunami, even though riots against his rule had erupted in the
Romanian city of Timişoara on 17 December. As one of his counter-measures,
Ceauşescu arranged a massive rally in Bucharest to prove to Romanians and the
rest of the world that the majority of the populace still loved him – or at
least feared him. The creaking party apparatus mobilised 80,000 people to fill
the city’s central square, and citizens throughout Romania were instructed to
stop all their activities and tune in on their radios and televisions. To the
cheering of the seemingly enthusiastic crowd, Ceauşescu mounted the balcony
overlooking the square, as he had done scores of times in previous decades.
Flanked by his wife Elena, leading party officials and a bevy of bodyguards,
Ceauşescu began delivering one of his trademark dreary speeches. For eight
minutes he praised the glories of Romanian socialism, looking very pleased with
himself as the crowd clapped mechanically. And then something went wrong. You
can see it for yourself on You-Tube. Just search for ‘Ceauşescu’s last speech’,
and watch history in action. The YouTube clip shows Ceauşescu starting another
long sentence, saying, ‘I want to thank the initiators and organisers of this
great event in Bucharest, considering it as a—’, and then he falls silent, his
eyes open wide, and he freezes in disbelief. He never finished the sentence.
You can see in that split second how an entire world collapses. Somebody in the
audience booed. People still argue today who was the first person who dared to
boo. And then another person booed, and another, and another, and within a few
seconds the masses began whistling, shouting abuse and calling out
‘Ti-mi-şoa-ra! Ti-mi-şoa-ra!’ 18. The moment a world collapses: a stunned
Ceauşescu cannot believe his eyes and ears.
All this happened live on Romanian television, as
three-quarters of the populace sat glued to the screens, their hearts throbbing
wildly. The notorious secret police – the Securitate – immediately ordered the
broadcast to be stopped, but the television crews disobeyed. The cameraman
pointed the camera towards the sky so that viewers couldn’t see the panic among
the party leaders on the balcony, but the soundman kept recording, and the
technicians continued the transmission. The whole of Romania heard the crowd
booing, while Ceauşescu yelled, ‘Hello! Hello! Hello!’ as if the problem was
with the microphone. His wife Elena began scolding the audience, ‘Be quiet! Be
quiet!’ until Ceauşescu turned and yelled at her – still live on television –
‘You be quiet!’ Ceauşescu then appealed to the excited crowds in the square,
imploring them, ‘Comrades! Comrades! Be quiet, comrades!’ But the comrades were
unwilling to be quiet. Communist Romania crumbled when 80,000 people in the
Bucharest central
square realised they were much stronger than the old man in
the fur hat on the balcony. What is truly astounding, however, is not the
moment the system collapsed, but the fact that it managed to survive for
decades. Why are revolutions so rare? Why do the masses sometimes clap and
cheer for centuries on end, doing everything the man on the balcony commands
them, even though they could in theory charge forward at any moment and tear
him to pieces? Ceauşescu and his cronies dominated 20 million Romanians for
four decades because they ensured three vital conditions. First, they placed
loyal communist apparatchiks in control of all networks of cooperation, such as
the army, trade unions and even sports associations. Second, they prevented the
creation of any rival organisations – whether political, economic or social –
which might serve as a basis for anti-communist cooperation. Third, they relied
on the support of sister communist parties in the Soviet Union and eastern
Europe.
Despite occasional tensions, these parties helped each other
in times of need, or at least guaranteed that no outsider poked his nose into
the socialist paradise. Under such conditions, despite all the hardship and
suffering inflicted on them by the ruling elite, the 20 million Romanians were
unable to organise any effective opposition. Ceauşescu fell from power only
once all three conditions no longer held. In the late 1980s the Soviet Union
withdrew its protection and the communist regimes began falling like dominoes.
By December 1989 Ceauşescu could not expect any outside assistance. Just the
opposite – revolutions in nearby countries gave heart to the local opposition.
The Communist Party itself began splitting into rival camps. The moderates
wished to rid themselves of Ceauşescu and initiate reforms before it was too
late. By organising the Bucharest demonstration and broadcasting it live on
television, Ceauşescu himself provided the revolutionaries with the perfect
opportunity to discover their power and rally against him. What quicker way to
spread a revolution than by showing it on TV? Yet when power slipped from the
hands of the clumsy organiser on the balcony, it did not pass to the masses in
the square. Though numerous and enthusiastic, the crowds did not know how to
organise themselves. Hence just as in Russia in 1917, power passed to a small
group of political players whose only asset was good organisation. The Romanian
Revolution was hijacked by the self-proclaimed National Salvation Front, which
was in fact a smokescreen for the moderate wing of the Communist Party. The
Front had no real ties to the demonstrating crowds. It was manned by
mid-ranking party officials, and led by Ion Iliescu, a former member of the
Communist Party’s central committee and one-time head of the propaganda
department. Iliescu and his comrades in the National Salvation Front reinvented
themselves as democratic politicians, proclaimed to any available microphone
that they were the leaders of the revolution, and then used
their long experience and network of cronies to take control of the country and
pocket its resources. In communist Romania almost everything was owned by the
state. Democratic Romania quickly privatised its assets, selling them at
bargain prices to the ex-communists, who alone grasped what was happening and
collaborated to feather each other’s nests. Government companies that
controlled national infrastructure and natural resources were sold to former
communist officials at end-of-season prices while the party’s foot soldiers
bought houses and apartments for pennies. Ion Iliescu was elected president of
Romania, while his colleagues became ministers, parliament members, bank directors
and multimillionaires. The new Romanian elite that controls the country to this
day is composed mostly of former communists and their families. The masses who
risked their necks in Timişoara and Bucharest settled for scraps, because they did
not know how to cooperate and how to create an efficient organisation to look
after their own interests. 21 A similar fate befell the Egyptian Revolution of
2011. What television did in 1989, Facebook and Twitter did in 2011. The new
media helped the masses coordinate their activities, so that thousands of
people flooded the streets and squares at the right moment and toppled the
Mubarak regime. However, it is one thing to bring 100,000 people to Tahrir
Square, and quite another to get a grip on the political machinery, shake the
right hands in the right back rooms and run a country effectively.
Consequently, when Mubarak stepped down the demonstrators could not fill the
vacuum. Egypt had only two institutions sufficiently organised to rule the
country: the army and the Muslim Brotherhood. Hence the revolution was hijacked
first by the Brotherhood, and eventually by the army. The Romanian
ex-communists and the Egyptian generals were not more intelligent or
nimble-fingered than either the old dictators or the demonstrators in Bucharest
and Cairo. Their advantage lay in flexible cooperation. They cooperated better
than the crowds, and they were willing to show far more flexibility than the
hidebound Ceauşescu and Mubarak.
Who, amongst us, wants to be the first one to
Booooooooooooooooooooo?