The nature of political revolutions is not something new. History has repeatedly shown us their origins and outcomes. Revolutionary calls often start small, as whispers in dimly lit taverns and gatherings. These whispers gradually coalesce into rants and, at a breaking point, become emotional outbursts and irrepressible movements.
Most revolutions are seldom premeditated; they arise by chance when those dissenting and often overlooked small voices merge into a hue and cry. Aristotle was among the first to articulate the theory of revolutions. According to him, revolutions occur when the political order fails to align with the distribution of property, leading to tension within the class structure. Aristotle observes many causes of revolutionary upheavals, but he cites inequality as the most prominent. It starts from a desire on the part of those deprived of virtue and their opponents—those who are motivated by an urge to possess property. The resulting state of disequilibrium makes those deprived of virtue experience what Aristotle terms ‘mental state’, a motive and desire to fulfil equality.
In his book The Republic, Plato highlights the importance of stability and order in society. He argues that a society firmly grounded in a set of beliefs and adhering to those principles is less likely to be destroyed. Aristotle expands on this idea, suggesting that changing these foundational beliefs can lead to revolutionary upheaval. This concept is evident in many major revolutions throughout history, such as the French and Russian Revolutions, where significant disruptions to the established order sparked widespread revolutionary movements.
During the Middle Ages, religious authority held absolute power, and people accepted its demands, even if it meant enduring harshness or inequality because it was seen as the keeper of law and order. However, the rise of secularism in the early modern period introduced alternative worldviews, setting off a chain of events that led to significant moments in history, such as the Reformation and subsequently, various political revolutions. These events illustrate that when foundational beliefs are disrupted, society often undergoes radical changes in an effort to restore stability, leading to revolutionary upheavals.
Take the French Revolution, for example. Prior to the revolution, French society was divided into three estates: the clergy (First Estate), the nobility (Second Estate) and commoners (Third Estate). The commoners in the Third Estate, which included peasants, urban workers and the bourgeoisie, had little political power and were subjected to heavy taxation by the government. This status quo seemed to run smoothly, despite the hushed complaints from the majority of the affected. But with the emergence of the Enlightenment thinkers, people began to criticise the absolute power of the monarchy and promoted the ideas of liberty and equality, setting the early stage for the revolution.
It's important to recognise that revolutions usually have specific motives, which can vary significantly depending on the type of government. For instance, the revolutionary goals in modern democracies may differ greatly from those in monarchies. In monarchies, dissatisfaction often arises from enduring authoritarian rule, suppression of freedoms and severe economic inequality. When these issues become intolerable, the people are likely to take drastic actions to overthrow the existing system and create a new one that is fundamentally different from what came before.
In modern democracies, there often isn't a complete overhaul of the system, but there can be intense protests aimed at changing or criticising certain authorities. These protests usually lead to a change in leadership, which might result in a more progressive and empathetic government. However, sometimes the new leaders may not be an improvement.
Discontent, in modern democracies, arises when the government strays from its democratic ideals. While inequality can be a factor, many modern democracies have mechanisms to address these issues. For example, elections allow dissatisfied citizens to vote for new leaders. Additionally, democratic nations typically have systems in place for addressing public grievances. When these systems fail and dissatisfaction becomes widespread, it can lead to significant public unrest, including mass protests and property destruction. Such unrest can sometimes force a major change in government, either by replacing the current leaders or by implementing drastic reforms to address the concerns raised by the public.
Hence, an unconventional view suggests that what we often call "revolutions" today may not be true revolutions in the original sense of the word. Instead, many modern so-called revolutions might be driven by dissatisfaction with existing societal or governmental structures. In these cases, people might seek something that seems less dissatisfying and more appealing, but they don't fundamentally alter the core principles of the existing system. Indeed, many historical revolutions began as small acts of dissent that eventually led to significant change. But, drawing from the modern occurrences of what have been termed 'revolutionaries', it is right to argue that we have only rattled the vessel, causing a few drops of its contents to spill, but the vessel itself remains unscathed and still full. The kind of revolution that previous scholars described was one where the vessel was shattered into pieces, its remnants and contents discarded, and a completely new, different vessel was brought in to take its place.
Immanuel Kant, the 18th-century German philosopher, saw revolution as a crucial step towards achieving a higher ethical foundation for society. He believed that revolutions are not just about making reforms but about completely overhauling a flawed system of governance and replacing it with a new one. According to Kant, such transformations are part of fulfilling humanity’s destiny.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, another key Enlightenment thinker, argued in his work The Social Contract that true social authority comes from an agreement, or social contract, made by all citizens. He claimed that when a government breaks this contract by violating people’s natural freedoms, citizens are justified in revolting to restore their rights. For Rousseau, a government is legitimate only if it represents the "general will"—the collective interests and common good of all members of society. Without this alignment, the government loses its legitimacy, and the social contract is effectively broken.
Italian Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci, in his ‘Prison Notebooks’, argued that for a revolution to be truly successful, it must penetrate all domains of society—entertainment, government, media, education, and more. Gramsci introduced the concept of ‘cultural hegemony’, which means the ruling class maintains its power not just through political and economic control, but also through cultural and ideological influence.
However, a revolution is not just about making changes across all these domains; it must also achieve significant success. Vladimir Lenin, a key figure in the Russian Revolution and a Marxist theorist, believed that a revolution should be judged not only by its intentions or efforts but also by its ability to bring about real success and establish a new order. In his book The State and Revolution, Lenin emphasises that it is crucial not only to overthrow the existing government but also to create a new and effective system of governance that aligns with the revolutionary goals.
Modern revolutionary movements, therefore, often aim to modify rather than completely overhaul existing systems. Unlike past revolutions that sought to fundamentally change societal structures, today's uprisings tend to apply a fresh layer to outdated systems, hoping that these updates will be more effective or compassionate than their predecessors.
A prime example of this is the Arab Spring, which started in Tunisia in the early 2010s and spread across the Arab world. Marketed as a pro-democracy movement, the Arab Spring led to the ousting of several long-standing leaders, including Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, and Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen. The uprisings were fuelled by the slogan “The people want to bring down the regime”, and were driven by a new generation seeking to end authoritarian rule and build a more democratic and prosperous future.
Despite some initial successes, the Arab Spring did not fundamentally alter the entrenched structures of these societies. Instead of leading to widespread reform, many of the uprisings ended with the replacement of one set of problems with another, sometimes even worse. Today, many countries affected by the Arab Spring are still struggling to stabilise and some even yearn for the pre-uprising status quo.
Tunisia, today, is a good example of the political and social transformation. It successfully replaced its autocratic regime with a democratic government. However, despite this change, the underlying structure of governance remained largely the same, which has contributed to ongoing struggles in addressing internal issues. In Egypt, after the removal of Hosni Mubarak, the country experienced a brief period of democratic governance before a military takeover reversed these gains. Meanwhile, in Syria, the initial uprising escalated into a full-blown civil war, leading to prolonged conflict and instability.
Other modern-day protests deemed by their bearers as revolutionary have also faced severe challenges. In Venezuela, protests against President Nicolás Maduro’s government have been met with harsh repression. Despite strong support for opposition leader Juan Guaidó and backing from the international community, Maduro has managed to retain control, and the country remains in a deep political and economic crisis.
Similarly, the Belarusian protests of 2020 erupted after President Alexander Lukashenko was re-elected in a widely contested vote. Despite widespread demonstrations and calls for change, Lukashenko’s government suppressed the protests and maintained its grip on power.
In Myanmar, the 2021 coup led to a civil disobedience movement against the military regime that replaced the democratically elected government led by Aung San Suu Kyi. The military’s brutal crackdown has continued, and the struggle to restore democracy is ongoing.
To add to this list, the African continent has witnessed several significant uprisings in recent years. The Sudanese uprising, which occurred between December 2018 and August 2019, led to the removal of President Omar al-Bashir. Following these protests, the military took control. However, Sudan continues to face challenges in establishing a stable democracy and addressing the economic issues that originally sparked the uprising.
In 2019, Algeria, through a well-fashioned push from a combination of armed forces and civilian protests, ousted President Abdelaziz Bouteflika. Theirs stemmed from simmering grievances related to years of economic stagnation, chronic corruption, and increasing social inequality and unemployment. Despite new President Abdelmadjid Tebboune's promises of reform, many demands from the pre-uprising period remain unmet.
Mali, in 2020, experienced its own uprising, leading to the overthrow of President Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta. Yet, this change in leadership has not resolved the deeper political, economic and social challenges facing the country.
Some nations in the most recent times have embarked on similar paths, seeking to establish new nations through revolutionary upheavals. Kenya, in particular, has recently witnessed a wave of protests dubbed Gen Z protests. What began as a social media outcry against the controversial finance bill has escalated into a full-blown revolt, with protestors taking to the streets and even occupying parliament. This has compelled President Ruto to retract his tax proposals and change half of his cabinets. Despite the drastic changes by President Ruto, calls for his resignation have persisted, leaving the outcome of this struggle uncertain.
Comparably, inspired perhaps by the events in Kenya, Bangladesh has experienced its own wave of Gen Z protests, leading to the ousting of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. The nation now finds itself in a state of limbo. Nobel Laureate Mohammad Yunus, appointed as the head of the interim government, has referred to the movement as the “the second liberation” after the country’s 1971 war of independence from Pakistan. Bangladesh, like many past nations emerging from successful revolutionary wars, is currently in a phase of optimistic idealism, with the prospective leaders engaging in lofty rhetoric.
The central question is whether these nations will live up to the ideals that inspired their quests for change.
Some modern revolutions, though not so recent, have nevertheless achieved notable success. Among them are the Cuban Revolution (1953-1959), the Iranian Revolution (1979), and the Eastern European Revolutions (1989-1991). These successful movements, much like the earlier French, American and Russian Revolutions, were driven by a strong, universal ideology that resonated across all segments of society. They didn’t just replace a regime; they transformed entire systems and structures.
For instance, the Cuban Revolution, led by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, overthrew the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista and established a new socialist state. Similarly, the Iranian Revolution ousted the Pahlavi Monarchy and created an Islamic Republic under Ayatollah Khomeini. The Eastern European Revolutions led to the collapse of various communist regimes and ultimately the dissolution of the USSR.
These examples illustrate the defining characteristics of a true revolution. Many nations that aspire to overhaul their governance may fall short in their efforts, thus resulting in failed movements. A key lesson from history is that a nation cannot claim to be pursuing a genuine revolution if it merely seeks to replace one regime with another of the same type. Those who express dissatisfaction with their current government may organise protests, but without a commitment to fundamentally change their system, these actions do not constitute a revolution. In a democratic state, for example, simply changing the leadership without altering the underlying democratic framework does not fulfil the criteria of a revolutionary movement.
Ultimately, while many uprisings may serve as catalysts for successful revolutions, true revolutionary change requires a comprehensive overhaul of governance, not just a shift in leadership.
