Justification of Revolution

The world today is a much freer world than that of classical antiquity. While many states still reign with a heavy hand, previously thought unbreakable caste systems have been weakened in a way that would be unimaginable a millenia ago. Social mobility has increased, with the origin of ‘nouveau riche’ representing the first break by commoners into the ranks of nobility and aristocracy. Thus it may seem confusing that today, there are far more ‘freedom fighters’ or ‘revolutionaries’ than there were in classical antiquity. While some of this can be attributed to an increased flow of information, improvement in transportation, the rise of strong and opposing ideologies as well as the increased availability of increasingly destructive weaponry, there is also undeniably a social cause for this. Is it because of a sense of arrogant entitlement from today’s generation, or is there true justification for the increase in revolutionary activity?

In ‘Leviathan’, a 1651 book by English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, he argues that the power of a ruler derives from the people, and that the basis of this can be seen in a ‘social contract’. The origins of his argument derive from an attempt to reconcile two seemingly contradictory principles: that the ruler should be capable, but that even a poor ruler should not be violently deposed. Hobbes was a staunch pacifist, having witnessed the horrors of the English Civil War as well as his father lost his post as vicar of Charlton after brawling with the local clergy. He argued that the cruelty of any ruler was justified as this was the fault of humanity’s failure to govern themselves. In what he termed the ‘state of nature’ (the modern equivalent being anarchy) he presents a bleak picture of a war of “bellum omnium contra omnes”, meaning ‘war of all against all’. He argued without something that could sufficiently awe and frighten humans, there would never be a force of absolute superiority and thus a perpetual cycle of struggle for resources would force all to live in a constant state of fear and violence. In Maslow’s ‘Hierarchy of Needs’ (1943), he proffers that the physiological and safety needs are the two basest necessities for humans. Combined, this forms the basic justification for any state: that in a state of anarchy the acquisition and protection of basic necessities such as food, water, shelter and mate would be difficult, while there would be little safety guaranteed. Because the state, however cruel or unjust, was necessary to establish and enforce laws-only necessitated because of humanity’s failure to self-govern-meant that humanity had no one to blame but themselves for the suffering they endure under a poor leader, given that it was out of necessity (a fear of anarchy) that humans gave power to the leader. He further proffered that the greatest human fear was death, and thus in anarchy not even the security of one’s own life was guaranteed. The justification of the state in this case is that it is better than the alternative that is anarchy, naturally reverted in the absence of a state. Thus in truth the power of the ruler was not some mandate of heaven, but the prerogative of the people and an individual did not have the right to challenge the state.

However, this presents a question: when is revolution justified? His argument is based on two cruxes: that the state is able and willing to provide the security, and that security, aside from physiological needs, is the basest of needs and thus must be fulfilled before the needs of the higher tiers can be addressed. There have been more revolutions in the past forty years than from the beginning of history to the 1500s in spite of unprecedented prosperity and security. Thus the age old adage that lifting people out of poverty will solve most of society’s issues is irrevocably proven false. From the non-existence of democracy in 1900, we see that there are more democratic countries than autocratic today. Thus it seems improved governance is not the solution either. What then, is the cause for such seemingly inconceivable urge for revolution?

Much of the western world today lives in post-scarcity: an economic concept that has been overlooked despite its significance for society. While wealth inequality remains an issue, the fact remains that many people in first world countries are not in need of basic necessities such as food, shelter, healthcare or transport. Discussing the economics of a demand deficient economy and how economic growth in the future will be driven by advertising and credit is out of the scope of this essay, but needless to say this has had a significant impact on the accessibility of the higher tiers of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. So called ‘first world problems’ including the desire to belong and to have purpose are not in fact selfish desires of entitled individuals, but a natural drive for humans who have already fulfilled the lower tiers of needs. With this in mind, there is much confusion over the desire for revolution in many well developed countries, high profile examples being Quebec from Canada, Catalonia from Spain, Brittany from France, Bavaria from Germany, Scotland from the UK and Hong Kong from China. While there are many background factors, a generalization can be made that these areas are generally quite prosperous and developed, thus meaning that by the test established prior in this essay, the people should be content given they are in a far better position than they likely would have been under anarchy - unless there is the belief that liberty is more important than physiological and security needs.

The justification for oppressive government was that security could not be attained in anarchy, with the higher levels of needs such as self-actualization and inclusiveness not being possible to achieve because humans would live in constant fear of death. It was thus put forth that a government which brought peace while failing in every regard was still preferable to anarchy as it was at least theoretically possible for a society to achieve the higher tiered needs. Yet what if fear was no longer the sole motivator of people? Modern philosophers postulate that there are individuals among us, many in fact, whose most base concern is not that of security, but that of liberty. In the state of nature, there are freedoms and liberties, even without order and peace.

But delving deeper, there needs to be a determinant for a ‘right to revolution’. Even if the modern reinterpretation of liberties as the basest human need rather than security is taken for axiomatic truth, the fact remains that if every individual is an individual judge on whether the government is acting legitimately (in protecting the freedoms and liberties of individuals) then there will be a perpetual cycle of revolution. What then, can be the criteria for justifying rebellion? There are many differing opinions on this, ranging from that there are none to such broad allowances that any revolution could be justified, but Pauline Maier proffers that, “Private individuals were forbidden to take force against their rulers...because of private injuries...not just a few individuals, but the ‘Body of the People’ had to feel concerned before the right of revolution was justified...indicating a broad consensus involving all ranks of society.” The basis of this argument is twofold: that the right of revolution is a collective right rather than an individual one; and that it is not human nature to fear death above all else, and that it is possible for humans to place honour, integrity and morals above self-preservation. Thus a government that protects security but not liberty could not be justified and life in the ‘state of nature’ would be preferable, thereby justifying revolution to remove the government.

Why has there been such a paradigm shift in the principles of society? This can be attributed to economic progression, in particular, improvements to communication and education. When westerners are unable to fathom why North Koreans do not topple a government that seems more interested in building weapons of mass destruction while they eat grass, they fail to take into account the situation of the North Koreans. While most would assume it is a culture of fear and the belief that a government that feeds them, however infrequently and little, is preferable to not being fed at all. Outsiders assumed that it was the fear of death above all else as well as the fundamental desire to fulfill basic physiological and security needs that causes the regime to continue. Yet North Korea’s situation is not so different from that of Iranian Student Protests of 1999, the Hungarian Uprising of 1956, the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1992, and many demonstrators protested and revolted despite it not being a logical action for self-preservation. What is different between North Korea and the aforementioned examples is that of knowledge: North Korea may be the only country with an alleged 100% literacy rate, yet its people are deprived of knowledge many around the world today take for granted. The Arab Spring was made possible because of social media, where several activists galvanized the population, the Hungarian Uprising was possible because the people of Hungary remembered a better time before being invaded by the Soviets, the Yugoslavian breakup was possible because of the strong sense of identities of individual ethnicities. The North Koreans lack all of the three, and thus they lack the knowledge and insight to revolt on a meaningful scale;small rebellions are quickly put out brutally without much of the population being aware.

With this, the conclusion can be drawn that with increased awareness comes increased revolutionary activity. The trend of increasing revolutionary activity parallels the democratization of education, for this allowed for the enlightenment of the masses towards the possibility of revolution. Contrary to the subjugative constraints of such instruments of oppression as the ‘mandate of heaven’, the ‘divine right of kingship’, or the ‘Communist Manifesto’, all of which sought to keep the masses suppressed and unaware of not only their ability, but moral obligation to rebel against governments who lack the true justification to rule, revolution became commonplace as society realized the continued existence of these states were a barrier rather than the foundations towards progression up the hierarchy of needs

Now an argument against this could be that of entitlement: many consider today’s generation the first that can look towards the future. The generation in the latter half of the 20th Century had to deal with the Cold War and the threat of a nuclear apocalypse; the generation before that had to fight two World Wars to keep aggressive powers at bay. It is only with unprecedented wealth that today’s youth have the luxury in looking at problems without immediate effect: climate change threatening the sustainability of future generations, not that of the here and now, but that of the uncertain, uncharted and distant future. Thus proponents of this argument postulate that it is only with the cushion of luxury and the presumptuous privilege of taking today’s wealth for granted that enables for such ‘arrogance’ to revolt against the states, whose continued existence have granted security and stability.

But this argument’s foundation is tenuous at best: the Hatians fought against the French for fourteen bitter years to acquire independence, despite being ill equipped, they willingly joining together for a greater cause - the belief in liberty - because despite the relative security and peace provided by their French overlords, they were not granted, as later discovered, the true lowest level in the hierarchy of needs (aside from physiological) which was liberty rather than security; the Peasant Revolt in Flanders (1323-1328) was led by a mayor and major land owners, revolting because of their leader’s pro-French stance which oppressed the freedoms and cultures of the more pro-British Flanderians; Cola di Rienzo’s revolution to unite Italy was based on historical texts recounting the glory days of Rome and a rejection of the oppression that the warlords of Italy placed on their populations to fund their lavish lifestyles and personal conflicts. Throughout history many have revolted not because the states failed to provide security, not because the states failed to provide wealth, but because the state sought to actively repress their populations and deny them liberty. With these examples the presumption that the greatest fear of all humans is death is also struck down, allowing for a rejection of Hobbes’ assertions in the Leviathan.

While there have been errors in historical works, there is equally much to be learnt from it. In Orwell’s 1984, Winston acknowledges that it is the proles that are the key to overthrowing INGSOC (the oppressive government in power over Oceania), for only they can give any revolt true justification. So long as the proles are content with their lives, however miserable, social consensus cannot be achieved and revolution could not be truly justified. It was not enough that Winston as an Outer Party Member was disillusioned, without the proles passing judgement that the government had failed to provide for their most basic needs, revolution could not be justified. The relationship between the government and the people is quite ironic - the people are responsible for judging the government for its legitimacy in providing for the most basic needs, yet without the government’s education of the people the masses would fail to judge the government properly. Regimes that seek to justify their own existence, no matter how repressive, cruel or unjust, always fall back on the argument that security is the basest need on the Hierarchy of Needs, and so long as they keep indoctrinating their citizens into believing this revolution can not be achieved for the people would not revolt - or at least not with the correct justification. It is only with the awareness that the basest need is not that of security, but that of liberty, that humans are capable of acting against their own self-preservation instincts because of moral compulsions. In the past, only the privileged few with knowledge and power could lead revolutions, and scant few of these did so without personal agendas.

Thus it is the responsibility of the people, the prerogative of each and every member of society to act as judges towards their governments. Revolutions today are more commonplace not because of arrogance, ignorance or avarice, but because today’s generation are far more aware of what is right than past generations. History, philosophy, sociology, all may be spun and woven with complex theories and bedazzling words to confuse and intimidate the masses into submission, but when one truly studies the past, they truly gain insight into what the old powers of a bygone era clinging onto the edge would try and bury - that revolution is the right and the responsibility of the people.