If scholarship has failed the Egyptian revolutionaries, they too have failed scholarship.  The revolution, as gallant as it may be, has so far benefited little from what theorists of revolutions have to offer.   A cursory look at the history of popular revolts suggests the following:

– Popular uprisings eventually subside if demonstrators do not take the initiative and suffice with demanding concessions from the old regime (such as asking the president to step down) because people
cannot keep coming out, and state institutions (such as the military), as well as other countries cannot be asked to chose between an established regime and a vague body called “the people.”  In revolutions, you cannot stand still; if you do not move forward, you will be pushed backward.

– To transform a popular uprising into a revolutionary situation, demonstrators must create a situation of dual power.

– Dual power requires that demonstrators immediately elect a governing body and charge it with managing everyday life (coordinating neighborhood watches, administering food distribution, negotiating with foreign government, and so on).

– This governing body can then demand the recognition of the people, state institutions (such as the military), and other countries of its legitimacy as the new power.

– This state of polarization between an old fading power and a new rising one is what eventually destroys the existing regime.

As long as demonstrators fail to apply this recipe, the power struggle will come to resemble a chessboard where one side makes all the moves and the other merely blocks its advances. The absence of a strategy for victory transforms a potentially revolutionary situation into a waiting game where the only option revolutionaries have is to keep their fingers crossed and pray for their rivals to lose, a truly sad situation, considering that the heroes of Tahrir demonstrated that they have all it takes to follow through. Revolutions, however, are won by strategy not stamina.