We've seen the results over and over again. What will happen is that eventually an authoritarian government will replace the previous government. Look at, USSR, Iran, Nicaragua, China. They all had a corrupt government toppled where people thought anything was better than what they had. Unfortunately without a plan and without professionals at the top of the government the government begins to fail. The general population feels that they are in a desperate situation and someone comes along that says he/she will solve their problem. The people vote them in or somehow the government gets taken over. The new government will eventually rule by decree and a dictatorial government rules the country until the next revolution.

This is a regular pattern. They need to look at it and try to prevent it from happening again. They need to, at the very least, have a plan to make people feel better about the people's future under the new government.

The "problem with revolutions" is that the winners are people successful chiefly if not only, at winning revolutions.

I recall company founders being shown the door when their "founder" skills mismatched the ensuing needs. Sanders, Jobs, and so on.

Who follows? Ask the U.S., France, Russia, China, Cuba. Each was different. Didn't Mao advocate for "continuous revolution?"

My sense is that both visionary and practical leaders are needed, if those attributes can be blended, but not revolutionary. Maybe it's easier these days to write a living constitution, but change has accelerated, making that harder to do (to adapt and grow) without making it easier to hack or pollute.

Look into the Arab Spring countries - I mean that one or two that didn't fall back to their old ways. Tunisia would be one, if I recall it correctly?

Tunisia fell back hard. The new dictator has way more power now.

Wait for cycle to repeat.

Nepal is a landlocked country with limited resources.

It's primary access to outside is India, a per capital poor country. It you want to be generous throw in Bhutan (too small to be useful), or Bangladesh... also poor. The side that borders PRC is on Tibetan frontier, i.e. flows is going to be geographically limited. Even landlocked neighbours of PRC like Laos what PRC props up to be hydro exporter struggles. Mongolia better. But Mongolia has 3m people. Bhutan <1m. Both can squeeze 4-6k gdp per capita by exporting resources and not having that many people. Things start breaking down when you get to 8m (Laos) 2k per capita. Nepal is 30m probably will settle somewhere similarly low income unless India/Bangladesh gets really rich to bleed over to Nepal (rising tide lift all boats). But that's unlikely in short/medium term, hence ultimately Nepal is geopolitically constrained (fucked). So if Nepalese want to be comfortably rich in Nepal, nothing left but politics and abject corruption.

For landlocked countries >10m you need to have rich neighbours (the European landlocked countries), or a shit load of valuable resources, Kazakhstan (20m), Azerbaijan (10m) + fossil. All other land locked countries over 10m without fossil are basically stuck in low-middle income. Which means politicians (including newly minted by revolution) will continue to loot and populous will continue be angry.

Here’s what ChatGPT had to say. (yeah, AI slop, I know ).

Successful or lasting transitions:

1. Eastern Europe 1989 (Velvet Revolution): Student protests toppled communist regimes; quick move to democratic institutions blocked a return of the old guard.

2. South Korea 1987: Student-led movement forced constitutional reform; strong institutions cemented long-term democracy.

3. Tunisia 2011: Youth uprising ousted Ben Ali; fragile, but managed more reforms than its neighbors.

4. Bangladesh 1990: Student protests forced out Ershad and restored parliamentary democracy.

5. Indonesia 1998: Students ended Suharto’s 32-year rule; transition to democracy largely stuck.

Failed or reversed outcomes:

1. Egypt 2011: Mubarak fell, but the military quickly reasserted power.

2. Myanmar 1988 & 2021: Youth-led protests brutally crushed; no systemic change.

3. Hong Kong 2019: Mass mobilization, but Beijing tightened control further.

4. Bangladesh 2018 & 2024–25: Student protests (road safety, anti-corruption) drew support but faced crackdowns or stalled reforms.

5. Indonesia 2019–20: Youth protests against anti-corruption rollbacks failed to overcome entrenched elites.

Learnings & guidance:

1. Toppling is the easy part.* Building resilient, accountable systems is much harder and requires as much energy as the protests themselves.

2. Institutions matter. Wins lasted where protesters translated momentum into concrete legal and institutional reforms (Eastern Europe, South Korea, Indonesia 1998).

3. Beware the vacuum. Without credible alternatives, old networks (Egypt, Bangladesh, Myanmar) reassert control.

4. Broad coalitions win durability. Success is stronger when youth movements ally with labor, civil society, and reformist insiders — not just street mobilization.

5. International context counts. Where outside powers supported transitions (Eastern Europe), reforms stuck; where they didn’t (Myanmar, Egypt), regimes rebounded.

Takeaway: Gen-Z has shown it can bring a government down in days. The real test is whether it can also build structures that stop corruption and nepotism from creeping back in.

Really bad GPT answer on so many levels. e.g. Tunisia is much worse now; Bangladesh succeeded in toppling the old regime (we'll see about the new gov). Myanmar became a full fledged war that they might actually win (IMHO, the junta would be done by now had it not been for China).