If you're not willing to participate in, and accept the conclusions of, your democracy in the first place, what makes it likely you'd be willing to do so in any other system?

Those revolutions were about asserting an effective democracy, not a particular policy platform. The governments they removed were actively rigging elections, not just successfully attracting the majority of the vote and implementing polices you didn't like.

Just to play devil's advocate here, what if there were only two parties you could effectively vote for, because the system was rigged in such a way that regardless of which party you voted for, the actual underlying system still penalised the majority whilst benefitting the corporation.

To be fair, my use of the word 'revolution' was misleading. I meant fundamental change, and not a violent overthrow of government. I did not realise and was naieve to the fact that many people only see revolution as a word that is both negative and violent.

It's too broad of a problem to describe. Different places have different problems. But you're also phrasing the issue in terms of non-participation. Is it impossible to join the political parties and work for change from within them?

So long as the vote itself is not rigged (something which gets questionable in the US I'd say) then in many cases its very much a matter of playing well with others, and actually having the support of the populace on your side.

There's also more layers of government that are important then just the federal. Local councils have a fair amount of power to influence policy implementation in their areas, states more so and representatives of both have louder voices for broadcasting dissent.

You seem to be using revolution to describe "getting enough supporters to vote for you". And if you can do that, then you can get yourself elected into office at some level of government (or someone you feel does represent you) and start effecting change.