Revolution' the 'peak births' theory.

• Author: Chalard, Laurent

The beginning of the year 2011 was the theater of two revolutions in the Arab world, in Tunisia first, then in Egypt, that nobody forecasted. They seemed to be a great surprise for most experts and politicians studying these countries. In just a few weeks, two long-lasting dictators were ousted from power. These events triggered a question; is there a hidden factor that could explain these revolutions?

In the media, unemployment of youth appears to be one of the main arguments used by experts to explain the origins of the revolutions. However, there are no detailed studies about the existence of a real link between demographics and revolution in these countries, there are only hypotheses.

What are the specific demographic indicators relevant to revolution?

This article proposes a new theory; the existence of a link between birth levels and revolution, that could be applied to Tunisia and Egypt but also elsewhere in the world. This link may permit the forecasting of revolutions.

I) The theory: Revolution is linked to the volume of births in a country

This article seeks to demonstrate that revolution could be linked mainly to the volume of births, and not to other demographic indicators.

1.1) Why study the volume of births?

At first, studying the volume of births could seem strange for a geopolitician. Indeed, it is far from being considered a statistical indicator as important as GDP per capita. It is a kind of data reserved to demographers in love with figures. So studies trying to link a specific demographic indicator (such as the volume of births) with geopolitical evolution on a global scale are uncommon. Specialists of some countries have shown that demographics are a factor of political evolution, but they never extended their findings to other nations.

For example, researchers have shown that in Kosovo, the growing number of Albanese compared to a declining Serbian population, explains why Kosovo acquired its independence from Serbia. In Northern Ireland, the IRA rebellion was linked to the fact that Catholics were growing quicker than Protestants. In the Middle East, some analysts consider that lower Jewish birth rates, relative to Palestinian birth rates, explain why Israel was compelled to evacuate Cisjordany and Gaza. Another example is South Africa, where the growing number of blacks relative to whites, who had a lower fertility rate, was a factor explaining the end of apartheid. Other studies have been done in the rest of the world. However, most of those studies concern a comparison between the growth rates of two ethnic groups. Furthermore, they often used several indicators (global rate of growth, fertility rate or birth rate), without a special justification.

The inquiry into demographics and geopolitical evolution is not common, with the exception of one theory: the "youth bulge", which links the age structure of population with geopolitical evolution. This theory considers that a higher proportion of young males (16-30 years old) in a country could lead to a revolution. Because it stands largely alone, this theory has caused the percentage of youth to be the main indicator of interest. In my opinion, it is necessary to complete this theory, by studying the impact of another demographic indicator; the evolution of the number of births, one of the four factors of global growth of a population (the others being deaths, immigration and emigration).

The yearly volume of births in a country gives us essential information; the approximate volume of manpower that will be in the marketplace twenty-five years later (excluding the possibility of massive migration), infant mortality being marginal in developed countries and low in most emerging countries, except in the poorer countries of the world, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa. For example, there were just 28 infant deaths for 1000 births in 2010 in Egypt. (1) So, the number of births is often a better indicator in forecasting the geopolitical fate of a country than other more traditionally used demographic indicators, such as global growth rate, birth rate or the fertility rate, whose interpretation can be misleading.

For example, the year with the highest number of births has the largest generation, but it could be a year with a declining fertility rate and birth rate. In Tunisia when the number of births peaked, the fertility and births rates were strongly declining (the fertility rate has declined to 4.3 children for every woman in 1986 and the birth rate to 31 children per thousand), so some specialists of this country believe that demography did not play an important role in the recent revolution. Indeed, there is often a misunderstanding of demographics by researchers coming from other disciplines; there is not an immediate correlation between the decline of fertility and the decline of the number of births. In the middle of the demographic transition, fertility rates are so high that they have to decline very strongly to lead to a diminution of the number of births. As long as the fertility rate is above the replacement level, the number of births could potentially increase. However, in most cases, the decline of the fertility rate is so brutal that, after a peak, births diminish because the childbearing generation is not very numerous, having come from a smaller population at the beginning of the demographic transition. (2) The peak is very visible in the population pyramid. For all these reasons, the volume of births is the most useful indicator in understanding the role of demography in geopolitical evolution.

A higher number of births could be due to several factors:

--the demographic heritage, which could explain the importance of women at the age of child-bearing;

--the fertility rate;

--the immigration of people at the age of child-bearing, which leads to a higher number of births, a phenomenon which played and continues to play an important role in the volume of births in the U.S.

1.2) A higher number of births; chance or calamity?

Now that we have addressed the importance of looking at the evolution of the volume of births, we should question ourselves about the significance of a higher number of births. Is this a good thing, favourable for a country, or a bad thing, that could lead to a revolution? In fact, this depends greatly upon the kind of country studied. Indeed, in a rich country where the economy is prosperous a higher number of births does not have the significance it would in a poor country where the economy is in a bad shape.

In rich countries, a higher number of births has several positive impacts:

--the growth of the number of consumers, which stimulates GDP growth rate

--growing future manpower

--greater potential for innovation (the higher number of young people, the higher number of innovative people)

--and a military reserve ...

For countries with an equal level of development, the evolution of the number of births could have important consequences for their economic hierarchy. A country whose volume of births overtakes another, is likely to have a higher GDP in 25 years, if there are no major changes in the development level between the two countries for other reasons.

Conversely, a higher number of births in a poor country could have several negative consequences if the government mismanages the economy, or is authoritarian or privileged an economy of annuity, as was shown by the theory of youth bulge, i.e the fact that...

--it could be favourable to contestations whatever their type (democratic, conservative, or socialist) and so lead to revolution, especially when the government is...