Eurasianet has another article called Nipping orange roses in the bud — post-Soviet elites against revolution. This comes as no surprise, because they are understandably running scared. But by making drastic decisions, however, they are creating an unsustainable environment for their own rule. You know how they say, “Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.” Well, while I would never consider someone who is pro-democracy an enemy, their best bet for keeping power is to negate the opposition’s argument by opening up on the civil liberties platform.

The court ruling to dissolve Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan (DVK), a prominent opposition party, is one of the clearest examples of a link between events in Ukraine and seemingly preemptive government action elsewhere. Top figures from DVK traveled to Kyiv in late November and party leader Asylbek Qojakhmetov even addressed demonstrators supporting presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko, as Qojakhmetov recounted to “Navigator” in a 29 November interview.

Perhaps emboldened by this experience, the DVK adopted a strongly worded statement at a party conference on 11 December. It read, in part: “Not recognizing this president ÄNursultan NazarbaevÅ and this parliament as lawful, we thus deny the legitimacy of the entire power structure. In our actions, we will base ourselves not on the decisions of thieving governors and kangaroo courts, but on how human rights and freedoms are understood in free countries…. We call on all healthy forces in society to take decisive actions, including actions of civil disobedience. Only by uniting forces will it be possible to free ourselves from the family clan that has usurped power.”

On 6 January, an Almaty court cited this passage when it ruled that the DVK must be dissolved for incitement to unlawful action. Though Kazakhstan????????s opposition and international rights groups such as Human Rights Watch and Freedom House have called on President Nazarbaev????????s government to review the decision, DVK has already lost one appeal, and future appeals appear likely to meet the same fate.

Looks like they just can’t help themselves though.

Taken together, the conspiratorial understanding of revolutionary political change and the need to “punch the revolution in the face” before it gets off the ground imply a strategy of preemptive strikes against opposition politicians and perceived conduits of malign outside influence. Pavlovskii????????s colorful phrase should not be taken too literally; overly aggressive moves could provoke international censure and domestic disgruntlement. Decisions by courts and election commissions to trim opposition prospects in elections, along with efforts to bring to heel Western-funded democracy-promotion organizations and NGOs are more likely to prove the weapon of choice.

I disagree, because all that does is put the pressure on slower rather than quicker. A quick revolution might not be as heartfelt and lasting as one that comes because of years upon years of slow degradation.

A strategy of preemptive punches involves at least one significant risk, however. It presumes that nothing really revolutionary is afoot, that politics is first and foremost about manipulation, and that the best way to maintain political stability is to seek out conspiracies and head them off at the pass. This runs the risk of reducing politics to a game of cat and mouse that leaves real concerns to fester unattended, which could eventually prove a far greater threat to stability than any “rose” or “orange” revolution.

Stability is so overrated sometimes.