Revolutions. What are they good for? Some might say ‘absolutely nothing’, and many caught up in the unleashing of destructive forces and random violence would agree. Moreover, leading revolutionary figures have all too often toppled authoritarian rulers only to establish themselves as even more dictatorial oppressors.
A glance back at the two archetypal revolutions – the French of 1789 and Russian of 1917 – would remind us of a familiar pattern. Vocal denunciation of the prevailing autocratic regime, coupled with promises of a new era that will truly put the people first. Overthrowing of the established order, and dismantling of long-standing arrangements for all key aspects of the governance of society. Suspicion, fear, hysteria intensifying over threats to undermine or even overturn the revolution, leading to baseless accusations, arbitrary arrests, repressive measures, tortures and executions. Tyranny asserts itself and terror reigns.
Many have argued about whether or not these negative consequences of revolutions are ever outweighed by the beneficial changes they might have engendered. What is indisputable is the impact of these revolutions had on fuelling reform movements in other countries which had otherwise long ignored calls for social and political reforms.
Throughout the 18th century, many reformists in Britain had pressed for changes that would curtail corruption within the ruling regime, and enable more people to participate equitably in democratic elections. Their demands were repeatedly brushed aside until the 1789 French Revolution turned their attention to the danger of pent-up demands for change exploding into a violent uprising that could not be suppressed. On the surface, the British establishment remained disdainful of reformist ideas, but in practice, successive reforms were enacted in the following decades to move the country much closer to what the reformists were seeking.
The effects of the Russian Revolution on Western Europe and North America were even more dramatic. Laissez faire capitalism had become the dominant power system in the advanced industrial nations in the 19th century. Against this status quo, reformists called for the state to take on greater social responsibility in protecting citizens from highly damaging economic vicissitudes, and they were routinely ignored, if not condemned. But once the 1917 Russian Revolution and its aftermaths had shown how a ruling regime could be swept aside and replaced by radicals acting in the name of economic justice and respect for workers, political leaders in the West started to accept (however grudgingly in some cases) that the state must take seriously the role of regulating the marketplace properly and providing a decent level of social security for its citizens. The New Deal in the US, the welfare state in Britain, and the rise of social democracy in many parts of Europe illustrated the spread of the new political mindset.
Then came the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Communist revolutionary threat was declared over. Social reforms could not only be ignored once more, but relentlessly reversed. Deregulation, privatisation, welfare cuts, removal of public safety nets, were celebrated as the best policies.
Consequently, millions have suffered. It’s depressingly likely that any revolution would bring short-term terror and long-term oppression to one’s country. But paradoxically, a revolution elsewhere might cause reactionaries to wake up to the need for genuine social and political inclusion, and change course without violent upheaval at home. Of course, in all good conscience, we wouldn’t wish the bloody turmoil of a revolution on any country. Yet what else would it take to shatter the complacency of shameless plutocrats?
No comments:
Post a Comment