What is revolution?

Revolutions start from the bottom up. The elites rarely help in revolution. You can see this through out history; the singing revolution against the USSR, also the fall of the Berlin Wall. A modern example would be Tunisia, Libya and Egypt; where the elites tried to a maintain power till they were toppled by the overwhelming force if the People. We can see where the elites have succeeded in their stomping revolutions some periods in the time of Stalin, a modern example would be Bahrain and a current example would be Syria.

So what is revolution?

Revolution is Sovereignty returned back to the People. Some revolutions are bloody others have been bloodless.

So what do I mean by Sovereignty?

In common perspective, Sovereignty is seen to be about State sovereignty or nation sovereignty. Sovereignty means that the State is completely free from internal and external coercion and completely free to choose its own destiny (deeper explanation can be found under the title ‘State Sovereignty’).

But in fact as Rousseau describes Sovereignty as the People because the People are the power. They give the authority to a group of people (government) to rule over the people; which therefore means that the People are the Power. Not states. States do not have the Power, authority is given to them to exercise restraint power, but they do not hold the key to Power. Ultimately the Power is in the hands of the People as if they rebel the State loses its legitimacy to rule and therefore it is a failed State (Locke).

Therefore, the People Uprise in a revolution which can be violent or non-violent, and change the Destiny of the State; to become the Destiny of the People. However, as with many revolutions (especially recent revolutions), the world can see that there is not much organisation and the General Will is not recognised. We can see that most evident in Libya, where there is currently no Security (at least pre-Revolution there was security to a degree) and there is still armed militias and vigilantes undermining this National Transitional Council which led to the US Ambassador’s death, also the desire for Power usually undermines the basis of the Revolution once they have elected a Person to Lead Them and take them out of their current dire state, which they have struggled to get out of; but instead has become corrupted himself; a great example would be the Leaders in the USSR and President Morsi of Egypt. These humongous problems undermine the very basis and foundation of Revolution.

But Revolutions are very important, because they allow for change to happen, Britain hasn’t had such Revolutions like that of France, or the current era, more so, British Rulers have managed to evolve to the Desires of the People. Not many countries have managed to do that. But, this does not mean that Britain hasn’t and doesn’t face its problems (which does not need to be discussed in this article).

So we can see that the best way for Change to occur is through Reform rather than Revolution. And that Revolutions are mass Change but only through instability, insecurity, mass murder, violence, even genocide and suffering. And even after all the violence and “Revolution” there is no way of knowing whether the vigilantes will still carry on (Libya), or, whether after ousting and corrupt leader another one is corrupted because of the system (Egypt).

So are these types of Revolutions really good or mass ‘Change for Reform’ better?