Post by Atheo on Sept 16, 2007 11:04:14 GMT -5
History seems to tell us that dramatic political revolution is difficult and rare without violence or threats of violence. When King John II of England signed the Magna Carta, he did so with hostile armies in his own city of London to insure his cooperation. Later, the American Revolution that resulted in independence from Britain’s rule was only made possible through war. In addition, before, during, and after the American Revolution those with different views than those wishing for independence and democracy were ostracized, persecuted, and in some cases imprisoned or even murdered. The French Revolution, too, was begun by violence at the storming of the Bastille. In fact, this revolution became notorious for the horrific genocide, repression, and unjust executions that followed for ten months in which over 18 500 people were killed on suspicion of being aristocratic or sympathisers of the aristocracy. In the revolution of England, that created the constitutional monarchy we see in England today, a bloody civil war was fought between those advocating democracy and those advocating royalty. In the Russian Revolution that brought about the Bolshevik government, the revolution began with the storming of the Winter Palace. The Bolsheviks later retained power through repression, terror, and mass executions.
Yet other political revolutions, such as the right to vote regardless of race in the United States, did not incorporate violence. Martin Luther King Jr. advocated a pacifist approach to equality, and eventually it won America over. So is violence necessary for political revolution? Is it the zeal of the people or the obstinacy of the leaders that causes violence, or is it a combination of the two? I would conclude that the amount of violence needed for a political revolution and a complete reform of government and how it works depends largely on the way the government operated in the past. The French king and aristocrats ruled with absolute power with little or no regard for the working class, and so were immovable through peaceful means. America was already built on a principle of free ideas and free speech as well as a base of equality, though on different terms of equality than those King wanted, so while it was a controversial issue black equality was on the whole reached non-violently.
Another thought I have had is how governments retain power in the early days of their rule. The average American around the time of the American Revolution persecuted and repressed those with political views differing from those possessed by the rebels. In the aftermath of the French revolution, those suspected of having views contrary to the revolution were quickly put to death without trial. After the revolution in which the Bolsheviks gained power, they retained power through the use of the Cheka, the Russian secret police who repressed any who had ‘anti-revolutionary ideas’. We cite these governments as stellar examples of democracies, although Russia less than the others, because they are democratic for the most part now. Yet if these governments in their beginnings kept hold of their power through actions contrary to the spirit of democracy and free speech, are they not shams? Is a democratic government truly democratic if it was placed in leadership through repression, tyranny, and censorship? Does that not weaken the very concept of democracy, when we must admit that many prominent democracies are in power now because they quickly and violently silenced any who opposed them when they first began?
Yet other political revolutions, such as the right to vote regardless of race in the United States, did not incorporate violence. Martin Luther King Jr. advocated a pacifist approach to equality, and eventually it won America over. So is violence necessary for political revolution? Is it the zeal of the people or the obstinacy of the leaders that causes violence, or is it a combination of the two? I would conclude that the amount of violence needed for a political revolution and a complete reform of government and how it works depends largely on the way the government operated in the past. The French king and aristocrats ruled with absolute power with little or no regard for the working class, and so were immovable through peaceful means. America was already built on a principle of free ideas and free speech as well as a base of equality, though on different terms of equality than those King wanted, so while it was a controversial issue black equality was on the whole reached non-violently.
Another thought I have had is how governments retain power in the early days of their rule. The average American around the time of the American Revolution persecuted and repressed those with political views differing from those possessed by the rebels. In the aftermath of the French revolution, those suspected of having views contrary to the revolution were quickly put to death without trial. After the revolution in which the Bolsheviks gained power, they retained power through the use of the Cheka, the Russian secret police who repressed any who had ‘anti-revolutionary ideas’. We cite these governments as stellar examples of democracies, although Russia less than the others, because they are democratic for the most part now. Yet if these governments in their beginnings kept hold of their power through actions contrary to the spirit of democracy and free speech, are they not shams? Is a democratic government truly democratic if it was placed in leadership through repression, tyranny, and censorship? Does that not weaken the very concept of democracy, when we must admit that many prominent democracies are in power now because they quickly and violently silenced any who opposed them when they first began?