In 2011-2013 there were a spate of articles suddenly discovering that having a large number of single young men, mostly literate, but also mostly unemployed and without marriage (or sexual) prospects was a bad thing. They needed jobs to be able to get apts. and save up money in order to be able to get married and "be men." This was true across the entire Arab world, just based on fertility rates x economic growth. It was worse for unemployed college graduates, because they had higher expectations. Their resentment was greater; their skills in wreaking havoc are also larger. 9/11.
Instead of prosperity there was built up resentment and bitterness. As the economies underwent a downturn, this demographic spilled onto the street in revolt.
This was predicted by some demographers back in 2005, but people ignore demographics. They predicted a wave of revolts, usually ending badly, from Morocco over into Iran. As such predictions go, it was pretty accurate. It also extends to places like the Donbas with trivial and obvious changes. And explains very well why China's managed success--prosperity without the predicted push for democratization--is working, at least so far. (At some point the Chinese system will start to fail because it'll be too complex to be handily managed. One could argue that it's had some breakdowns already. Sadly, Putin's trying to move to that system.)
"Illiterate" is also a misnomer. Most of the men are literate, in that they can read. They are illiterate, in that they retained their low SES, strictly tribal, strictly peasant, culture; they are not widely read nor highly educated. Those liking revolutions tend to be highly educated, think of the brotherhood of man and are ideological idealists (whatever their ideology). Those they lead most often tend to be brutish, "long term" may mean "the end of the month," and they want for themselves and theirs more than they want for the common good. They *are* the common good, as far as they are concerned.
= new reply since forum marked as read
