Political: Dominance of an individual, family or party for decades to centuries +Social: Suppression of political dissent + Economic: High unemployment = Revolution for change.
Take a look at Libya where Qadaffi has ruled for 41 years. The unemployment rate is 30% (and that's only because 10-20% of the population works in surveillance for the government. In Egypt, 90% of the population, which is Muslim, has been prevented from having political influence, despite their obvious majority. Similarly, Bahrain's government is Suni while 70% of the population is Shia, and the ruling family has been in power for around 200 years. Yemen has been under autocratic rule for 32 years, living conditions are poor, and a large percentage of the population is uneducated or illiterate. And in Tunisia a street vendor set himself on fire to draw attention to the fact that the government wasn't allowing him to make a living.
There have been demonstrations, possible precursors to revolution, in Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Jordan and Morocco, and people are talking about Angola being the next country to have a revolution. And now the uprisings in Syria are becoming more violent (http://tinyurl.com/43ajop5).Why don't "we" (the countries that assume some responsibility for restoring 'order' and 'democratic' rule, get involved earlier, when there may be opportunity for change instead of bloodshed? (I know; it's easy to say, but as world leaders watch governments fall, they might be more receptive to preemptive change).
I'll have more to say about this topic in upcoming posts. (And to think, someone once told me that I was wishy-washy, and needed to form some strong opinions!)