Revolutions cannot be well assessed by outsiders. Or by the affected government either for that matter.
All such grievances are as perceived by the affected populace; and typically the perceptions of the entire populace affected by such governance runs the full range, from ready to fight personally for liberty to ready to fight personally to sustain the status quo.
Governments, being made up of bureaucrats and politicians are genetically il-equipped to deal effectively with challenge rooted in grievance based on the nature of their existence/performance. Bureaucrats resist change and seek to protect their beloved process and procedures. Politicians avoid taking personal responsibility, as to do so is to have it converted to blame by their opponents, legal or illegal in nature. So most governments when faced by such challenge have a single go-to move: "Enforce the rule of law." Just send out the security forces to make this problem go away. Mix in some perks if you can afford it, like a little extra welfare, or a tax break, etc. also tighten up controls on things like information, ability to assemble; and get rid of as many guns as you can. If you want to control the populace those types of things are big trouble.
Governments of states who have economic/security relationships with states facing such challenges have a single go to move as well: Reinforce what that partner nation is doing, as they are the government so therefore "right" regardless of how wrong their actions are. Provide support to their security efforts, help with their social bribery program, etc. Preserve the status quo because business contracts and security agreements are all tied to the preserving the status quo.
If you are a government who does not have, but would like to have economic and security relations with such a country, but they rebuke your advances, there is a go to move for that. Conduct UW to support the populace in their revolution. In the modern age non state actors such as AQ can now play this game as well.
Its getting so that its just not as fun to be a self-serving despot as it used to be. Governments are finding that they must either listen and evolve to a new, more natural stability; or they can resist and fall.
The details of the story are always different, but the story line is almost always written in this same formula.
You want to know how Afghanistan ends but can't wait to get to the end of the book? Well, you've already read a dozen books just like it so there is a short list of alternative endings:
1. Continue the current approach until the rebelling populace is finally suppressed. Begin the entire process all over again in 20 years when the populace once again has the capacity to act out.
2. Change the current approach, listen to the rebelling populace and make reasonable accommodations to ensure that the entire populace is equitably incorporated in a system that is dedicated to justice and that is perceived as legitimate by the affected populace. It will likely be messy for a while but will settle into some form of natural stability that works for them.
3. Maintain the current approach until the government loses. Then prepare for a couple decades of sorting it out if "good guys" prevail, or an endless seesaw of back and forth revolution if an equally self-serving group takes charge.
What ideology the challengers apply is moot to the outcome and to the fact that their is a challenge to begin with. Governments love to blame ideology, but ideology does not cause these conflicts. What form of government exists or emerges is largely moot as well in general, but very important in terms of what is seen as "appropriate" by the people it affects. In the US we have come to see "democracy" as some form of governmental penciling. Only if tailored to be "appropriate" and see as "legitimate" by the affected populace.
Bookmarks