Road to Revolution

It does not matter what a government calls itself or the way it administers the nation, it is the behaviour and manner in which the government portrays itself and the policies in which are applied that will determine it popularity or survivability. It could be a democratic, an absolute monarchy or a republic state or it could be feudal, communism or fascism, yet these are merely names that identify the way of governance, not the actual mode of governance.

Look at the French Revolution in which the masses, having determined that they would starve no more, took the law into their hands to topple the opulent and powerful French monarchy. This is actually the birth of republicanism. Americans did the same when they cannot tolerate the British taxation system any longer. In fact, countries are born through revolution or sorts. China, Cambodia, Iran, Nicaragua, Philippines, Bolivia, Greece, Cuba, Haiti, Mexico, Romania, Russia, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Georgia, Laos, Congo, Ghana, Angola, the list goes on and on. These are incidents where the common people overthrew the legal government of the day due to political dissatisfaction, military coups, civil wars, citizen revolt and economic, social or religious transformations. This is not something modern as the first recorded revolution was in 615 BC when the Babylonians revolted against rule from the Assyrian empire.

Revolutions can either be violent or non-violent but the effects, born from the same desires, are identical. When the people can no longer endure the harsh treatment or partiality by the government, the automatic reaction is to find an alternative option. When reforms are not forthcoming and the people cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel, when the desire for change surpasses all logical reasoning, when one cannot no longer stoop any lower, this hunger for a better life with better prospects becomes absolute paramount and it only takes one leader amongst the masses to inspire them from a slumbering indifference to a fighting cause.

Some governments did not mean to be ruthless or corrupt but the lack of a strong leadership at the apex permitted its ministers to take advantage of the state of affairs, to enrich themselves through corruption whilst other began taking the law into their own hands, often ignoring the weak judiciary and civil enforcement agencies, and starting to become a law unto itself. When the situation becomes untenable, and when the common people of the land can no longer accept such debauchery, herein lies the foundation for a revolution against the elite. Theda Skocpol had this to say, “revolution is defined as a rapid, basic transformations of society's state and class structures…accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below”, attributing revolutions to a conjunction of multiple conflicts involving state, elites and the lower classes.

Governments are not blind. The people within the governing political parties are not stupid either. Their awareness begets repressive actions to suppress the inclination towards revolution. From their lofty positions, laws and legislatures are manipulated to allow repressive bills to be tabled and enacted into law (in the name of national security) in order to protect their positions. Some countries do not even go through such a hypocritical sham as exhibited in China and Iran where the power instead comes from the barrel of a (loaded) gun. Incarceration without trial is considered mild as compared to summary execution. Look at what the GRU did to their Russian citizens or what the Chinese cadres did to their neighbours. These are state-sanctioned actions perpetuated to inhibit the spread of development and to diminish the hopes of the people.

Experts have reasons and methods to define why a revolution can occur. Cognitive psychology utilizes a “frustration-aggression” theory to explain the logic whereby the primary cause for revolution was the widespread frustration, due to recession or discrimination, within a socio-political situation. Sociologists however supports a “structural-functionalist” theory whereby a state of severe disequilibrium between the state and its people being the reason for revolution. Political scientist however utilizes the “pluralist” theory in which the power struggle between conflicting parties and their respective interests causes an unbalanced society ripe for revolution. Whatever it may be and to which theory one subscribes to, the pertinent point is that revolutions are caused when conflicting interests, due to whatever reasons, between two capable parties are no longer sustainable and can no longer subsist together.

As in all conflicts, there are casualties involved. In a non-violent revolution, the first casualties are those either incarcerated or executed before the revolution. Within a desperate government seeking legitimacy in its actions, prior legislations permitting such reckless deeds would have been in place to stop the leaders at the starting blocks. The concept of civil liberties would have been forfeited anyway as these people would be branded as national security threats. The charges would be treason against the legal government and it would not matter if this was applicable or not as there will be no trial. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge did exactly this as with Cuba and China when both were governed democratically (before Communism took over after a bloody revolution). Other countries that remained democratic after such emergency measures include Indonesia (ousting of Suharto), Philippines (ousting of Marcos), Grenada (ousting of Eric Gairy), South Africa (ousting of P.W. Botha) and Ghana (ousting of Kwame Nkrumah).

Revolutions occur when the majority of people within a nation are no longer afraid to voice out their sentiments at a corrupt/discriminatory government and when the leaders of these people are no longer afraid of the extreme consequences meted out by the same government to nip it at its bud. Make no mistake about it – A revolution will have its fair share of collateral damage due to the fact that both side wills employ all manner of resources to prevent the other from achieving its aims. They say that the meek shall inherit the earth. What they forgot to add is that the meek shall inherit the earth ruled by the strong and those that dare to assert themselves.

– Hakim Joe