Former UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill famously said, “Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried, in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” So, despite the flaws of democracy, it is still way ahead of its alternatives. And one major element of democracy that makes it better than its alternatives is the ‘right to dissent’; it provides everyone the right to disagree with the regime and protest against it. Though democracy provides a chance to correct the mistakes through elections at regular intervals, the right to protest against the decisions of the government exists even during the term. It makes the elected government accountable towards the people. Citizens have the right to show their disagreement with the government. When a significant number of people show their dissent together towards any decision or the policy of the government, it is termed a protest. And when the protest gets bigger and the dissent is now not limited to one decision or policy but rather towards the whole setup, it is defined as the movement. Eventually, when the movement transcends the limits of its topic and starts dissenting from the incumbent regime, it becomes a revolution. Karl Marx once quoted revolutions as the locomotives of history. The counter-thought to this was later written by Walter Benjamin, who described revolutions as the kind of emergency brake on the train, which is pulled to halt the destructive pace of unchecked historical progress. Every philosopher had their own perspective on looking at revolutions; nevertheless, one thing is common with all the revolutions: they all are started to bring change for good, to reform the system or society. But do they really reform the system? Perhaps the answer lies in grey. Thus, in this article, we’ll pursue this question, even though we know that the answer lies in grey. But what shade of grey? And that makes it worth pursuing.
Protests, movements, or revolutions are so natural to a human being that we might not trace when the first revolution in human history must have happened. So, let’s start from a story we all are very well aware of. Julius Caesar of the Roman Republic, buoyed by the support of his army and Rome’s non-elite citizens and emerging victorious in his wars, made him tremendously powerful. After being named dictator of Rome for 10 years, he declared himself “the dictator for life” the following year. The senators were not happy with it, as they lost all their power, and it got into the hands of Caesar. Caesar’s reforms, like granting property to retiring soldiers and redistributing land to the poor, made him immensely popular among the military and Rome’s lower and middle classes. A cult of personality developed around Caesar as he minted coins with his image, celebrated his birthday as a public holiday, and ruled the Senate from a golden throne. Nevertheless, the elites and the former power holders were angered for obvious reasons. Finally, dozens of senators who believed Caesar’s concentration of absolute power threatened the republic’s democratic institutions plotted his murder and executed it. The revolutionary act of assassination, which was done to save the 400-year-old Roman Republic, rather than saving it, accelerated its demise. Rome underwent a brutal and lengthy civil war. Apparently, Caesar’s heir, Augustus, emerged as Rome’s supreme leader after purging his enemies, murdering Caeser’s assassins and cracking down on republicans. Thus, a revolutionary move made to save the republic led to the formation of the autocratic Roman Empire, which lasted for almost five centuries. Nevertheless, you can’t explicitly state that the move by the senators was malicious per se. Because apparently, they wanted to save the republic. But it led to something they might not even have imagined.
Although it’s not like that, all the revolutions lead to catastrophe. The Glorious Revolution of the late 17th century in England could be one such example. The Glorious Revolution, often referred to as the ‘Bloodless Revolution,’ has been one of the major factors in the transition of medieval history. This revolution established a constitutional monarchy in England, and the English Bill of Rights (1689) strictly limited the powers of the Crown. However, this revolution was more strategic, calculated, and politically orchestrated rather than a purely aggressive military uprising. It not only changed the political dynamics of England but also inspired further revolutions such as the American and French Revolutions. It inspired the colonies of European countries to revolt for their rights. Also, peoples of neighbouring empires like the French Empire got inspired by the ideas of rights, liberty, and consent of the governed, which eventually led to the French Revolution, which we will discuss further. If we extrapolate the impact of the Glorious Revolution to some more extent, we can even say that the contemporary democratic, liberal, and constitutional way of governance could be a domino effect of that event. This could very well justify Hannah Arendt’s statement on revolution, “The end of rebellion is liberation, while the end of revolution is the foundation of freedom.” Hence, the revolutions can play a role as big as this in history.
Now, let’s move to the French Revolution, one of the defining events of late medieval history. Here things were not as smooth as the previous revolution that we talked about. Apparently, it plunged the absolute monarchy and feudal system into crisis by replacing them with liberty, equality, and human rights. However, this transformation came at an immense cost, consisting of long-term instability, extreme political violence, chaos, and eventual authoritarian backlash. The revolution started with the demands of equal voting rights by the commoners against the clergy and the nobility. When rights were denied, they swore the “Tennis Court Oath,” vowing to draft a new constitution. Following the unrest, the National Assembly drafted the declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. This constitution asserted that all the men are born free and equal, championing the motto of liberty, equality, and fraternity. The assembly first established a constitutional monarchy, stripping the powers of the king, but later on, when France found itself at war with neighbouring monarchies, the assembly executed the king and queen due to the suspicion of him colluding with enemies. France was declared a republic, but it didn’t come to them as a heyday. As France plunged into the Reign of Terror under Maximilien Robespierre. It continued for ten months during which tens of thousands of suspected enemies were guillotined and ultimately ended when Robespierre himself was overthrown and executed. Henceforth, the revolution became moderate, and the country was governed by an unstable and corrupt council. And then the next chapter of the French Revolution unfolded with the rise and the fall of Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon crowned himself Emperor of the French. Though his ascent brought an end to the revolutionary republic, he institutionalized many of its core reforms, permanently reshaping the political and legal landscape of Europe. After his defeat, the Bourbon dynasty was restored to power, and France became a monarchy again. Ultimately, France could only become a republic again by 1848, and that too with a new revolution. Thus, the story of the French Revolution comes to an end. From the revolution’s point of view, it could be one of the longest struggles for the final outcome. Though, the inspirations of the French Revolution spread like wildfire in the woods, firstly in Europe and then globally. France burned for long in the revolution, but in the meantime, it also led to substantial reformations in the nation, like the citizens being granted rights of liberty, property, speech, and popular sovereignty. Also, society shifted from royal subjects to legally equal citizens.
Revolutions that we have discussed so far have actually put an end to the persisting issues and brought some reforms even though they came at a substantial cost. Next in the line of discussion is the Russian Revolution, which almost shaped the 20th century global phenomenon. The Russian Revolution was the very first attempt to execute the communist system of governance at a comprehensive level. The revolution successfully dismantled the feudal autocracy, initially through the democratic aspirations and later through the radical restructuring. After the establishment of the Bolshevik regime led by Vladimir Lenin and, later on, by Joseph Stalin, it attempted to bring the structural change from the grassroots. Russia transitioned from a largely illiterate, backward agrarian peasant society into a formidable industrial and military superpower within a few decades. State-led central planning, though harsh, built heavy infrastructure, expanded electricity access, and drastically reduced illiteracy through massive public education campaigns. They also enacted some of the most progressive legislation in the world at the time. Women were granted rights of equality, and class distinctions were uprooted. Despite these reformations, the democratic promise of "All Power to the Soviets" was rapidly subverted into a one-party dictatorship. Political pluralism was crushed with the violent suppression of the constituent assembly. Individual liberties were censored, and personal autonomy was subordinated to the demands of the totalitarian state. Seven to twelve million lost their lives in the civil war at the outset of the revolution. Some radical experiments ruined the economy and led to mass starvation and famine. Thus, the revolution didn’t come as a blessing to the common masses of Russia, as they lost even those rights that they had under the monarchy.
Having discussed all the major revolutions that took place globally, let’s get back to India. To be precise in the definition of revolution, India never really revolted in such fashion. India was colonized by the British, and the only revolution (if called that) they did was to gain independence from the colonial regime. The Indian freedom movement, led by several freedom fighters, gained India its independence and the right to form its own constitution. India has been run democratically and constitutionally since then. India as a civilization is not very optimistic about radical uprisings or such revolutions, as it is vast enough to subsume the tides. Even after independence, when it became a nation-state with one constitution, many doubted its survival due to diversity, but the flexibility of its constitution has made it stand against all the odds. There have been a few movements that were at the level to be considered regime-changing. One of them was the JP Movement of the 1970s, in which Jayaprakash Narayan gave a historic call for “Total Revolution” to entirely overhaul Indian society. It led to the first and only instance of emergency in India due to internal unrest. The movement was demanding an end to administrative corruption, electoral malpractice, and authoritarian trends. Eventually, the movement succeeded in its attempt and resulted in the formation of the first non-Congress government in India. Veteran politician Morarji Desai became prime minister of the five-party coalition government. In the aftermath of this regime change, several measures were taken to restore democratic institutions, like amending emergency laws and restoring civic freedoms. Nevertheless, the government suffered inherent weakness due to lacking a cohesive policy vision and clashing leadership. As a nation, India lost on some crucial grounds from a defence perspective due to the weak leadership. Ultimately, the government collapsed within two years, and Indira returned to power with a massive majority. Thus, the person who proclaimed an emergency in the nation got chosen again after a few years with a comprehensive majority. It shows that the people understood the ground reality of such revolutionary movements.
In issue 08, where we discussed social media activism, we discussed two movements that could be said to be organic, not deliberate, in the history of independent India: the JP Movement, which we already discussed, and the Anna Movement of 2011. The Anna Movement, popularly called the ‘India Against Corruption’ movement, was against the multiple scandals, scams, and corruption charges against the incumbent government. The movement gained massive public momentum, and due to immense public pressure, the government had to agree to new anti-corruption laws. This movement played the role of lubricant in the regime shift after the general elections of 2014. As a movement, it was successful to some extent, at least in getting its demands met, but the structural problems still persisted.
We have travelled a long distance from ancient history to contemporary times, having discussed some notable revolutions and movements, firstly in global history and then in India; we can arrive at the conclusion that both the statements that we discussed at the inception are equally justifiable. As said by Marx, the revolutions are locomotives of the history, and as countered by Walter, revolutions are brakes on the blind social progress. Both are equally true in their own ways. All the revolutions that we discussed above greased the history and also shifted its directions. Few led to the emergence of historical principles that we follow even today, and some led to destruction so severe that the people even suffer today. No sane individual can deny the significance and need of resistance against wrongs and movement for reforms. Many movements, like American Civil Rights Movements, Indian Socio-religious Movements, Women Empowerment Movements, and Human Rights Movements, have changed the social perspective and led to the reformation of every section of society. However, that doesn’t fade the other side of the coin: that the movements or revolutions attempting to overhaul the whole system in one go without pragmatic policy and vision often lead to the decay of the society. The targeted movements for a specific issue with clarity about the reform they want often bring positive change. Nevertheless, the revolutions attempting to topple the political incumbents with an unpragmatic idea and leadership either go in vain or result in bloodshed.
Concluding a long-held discussion and answering the question that we pursued, do revolutions really reform the system? Though we knew the answer at the start as well, that it lies in grey, so it is. As far as the question of ‘which shade of grey’ is concerned, we leave it upon the conscience of the reader. However, as stated in ‘the iron law of oligarchy,’ given by Robert Michels, all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are at the start, will eventually and inevitably be ruled by a small group of elites, which is true to a large extent in the case of revolutions. Revolutions or movements, anti-establishment ones, start with a vow of outthrowing the incumbents and establishing the people’s rule. However, inevitably the people fall prey to the “meet the old boss phenomenon,” where a dramatic leadership change or revolution promises total transformation but ultimately results in the same systemic behaviours, power dynamics, and flaws as the previous regime.
— Saurabh Srivastava