The BBC news page has a commontary by Mark Almond entitled The cult of 'People Power' .  He makes some good points, but doesn't seem to note that a non-violent revolution, even if it leaves many of the same corrupt lower-level pols in power, is significantly preferable to a violent revolution that likely does the same thing, but leaves far more people dead.

He notes:

Revolutions may sometimes be necessary but their
outcomes are always messy. The danger today is that when ordinary
people see the intrigue and backroom deals which accompany People Power
behind the scenes, they plunge from hope to despair. Far from
energising true democracy, People Power's "day after" of cynical
politics as usual causes the people who went on the streets in millions
to sink into apathy for years to come.

The need then is to keep the new leaders feet to the fire with social movements organized outside of the prevaling power centers.  Or perhaps to reject leaders altogether.  Hmmm… sounds a bit like anarchy.  Good.