在前蘇聯的三個共和國—喬治亞、烏克蘭與吉爾吉斯所相繼發生的「顏色革命」被許多人期待可以創造新一波的民主浪潮，把歐亞大陸上一些部分民主的國家帶入真實的民主境地。然而在仔細地觀察了實際發生的例子之後，本文發現顏色革命雖有許諾、更有侷限。這主要表現在三個方面：第一，顏色革命所發生的國家在獨立國協當中都是已經有了若干民主進展的競爭性威權體制國家。顏色革命在此的意義是完善民主體制，而不是徹底改變舊制度的真正革命。第二，革命後的新執政菁英許多是來自於舊政權，他們多是在舊政權當中無法獲得所企盼的利益或施展的機會，因而投身於反對陣營。統治菁英的延續性也斲傷了顏色革命的徹底性。第三，在顏色革命後所建立的新秩序和嚴謹的民主制度仍然有若干的距離，因此顏色革命的成就是有限的。雖然三個顏色革命都有類似的侷限性，不過它們在民主深化的可能性上，卻彼此互有差異，而是由其地理區位所決定。

It is widely expected that the “color revolutions” that happened in the post-Soviet countries of Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan have the potential to launch a new wave of democratization and bring about true democracy in Eurasia. However, one finds limitations to those promises. Firstly, all color revolutions occurred in competitive authoritarian systems where democratic rules had been laid down and regular elections conducted. This means the color revolutions were not genuine revolutions, but rather political changes that perfected existing democratic institutions. Secondly, the new ruling elite were mainly from the old regime. Their defection had more to do with frustrated ambition than political idealism. The continuation of the ruling elite further dampens the revolutionary nature of the three political changes. Thirdly, the new political order is still a far cry from consolidated democracy. Although the above limitations are present in all the three cases of color revolutions, the prospects of democratic deepening vary among them, hinging on their geopolitical positions.