In fact, Locke calls for restoration of the old order via the change of power in case the old order is subversively corrupted by immoral authorities. Thus, he justifies the dissolution of the government if “a single person, or prince, sets up his own arbitrary will in place of the laws, which are the will of the society, declared by the legislative” (Locke, 1690). The order once established is therefore in Locke’s perception sacrosanct; he fully believes that the acting laws of the ideal society will represent the will of the citizens and have to be guarded against evil officials. Particular instances of such violations include the intrusion of the single person in the activities of the legislature, or interference in the election process through imposition of one’s own rules. Readers that lived in Locke’s time could have concluded that the British monarchs many times violated the laws and therefore have to be replaced. However, Locke did not call for violent action, although his Second Treatise on Government does not envisage a concrete procedure for change of power.
Later Theorists on Revolution
The late 19th century saw the emergence of a new political movement – Socialism. Socialists called on the authorities to give more rights to the working class and to secure the implementation of radical social changes that would alleviate the state of the working-class poor.
However, different social scientists differed as to the support for radical removal of the current government by force. The ‘reformist’ view insisted that “socialism can be introduced gradually and without violence, by reforming the present set up” (Harman, n.d.). This view is also called ‘social democracy’, Fabianism or ‘revisionism’.
In contrast, Marx insisted on overthrowing the current powers using the most violent methods. He eagerly awaited that the revolution in his native Germany in 1847 would end with the victory of the working class, saying that “German bourgeois revolution could serve only as a direct prelude to a proletarian revolution’ (Kautsky, 1934). While many Marxists dispute to which degree Lenin realized Marx’ ideas, his Bolshevik party carried through one of the bloodiest overturns in the history of mankind to establish a totally new political order.
Current Revolutions and Policies
The world to this point has a large history of social cataclysms to look back upon. We will look at the most recent one termed ‘revolution’ throughout the world – the Ukrainian Orange Revolution. This event would hardly have satisfied Marx with its peaceful nature and complete inattention towards working-class rights. It fits nicely though into the Lockean definition of government dissolution: people revolted against the government’s violation of their inherent right to free elections.
The reaction of the Western politicians towards the Orange Revolution was welcoming for the most part. One can interpret these policies in several ways. Surely crowds of people freezing in the streets to protect their rights to free election agreed with the idea of democracy dear to many in the West. At the same time the support of a Western-oriented opposition resonated with the need to establish spheres of influence to supplant Russia from its former colony. Overall, Western governments tend to support revolutions that aim at establishing democratic political orders, are accompanied with no or little democracy and bring to power liberal Western-Oriented governments. One could also say that the modern West supports revolutions that agree with Locke’s perceptions of social change and turn their back to violent actions in the Marxist style.
Critique and Implications
It would be interesting to find a universal and efficient approach to revolutions. It is inevitable that nations will overthrow governments that tyrannically oppress their citizens, such as, for example, Saddam Hussein’s was. The rest of the nations have to choose whether to support revolutions that remove oppressive governments and to accept their leaders as legitimate or not.
If we go by the Lockean definition and support governments that restore the just social order in order to express the view of society, we will find that the notion of society is ambiguous. In fact, many political groups proclaim that they represent the whole society, but few of them do so. The Marxist notion was much more definitive, and the Soviet government usually knew little hesitation as to which upheaval to support and which to ignore. However, it is hardly just, and few politicians will want to accept the view that we should approve of revolutions that establish the power of one social group. So the modern political leaders have to tread the slippery ground in deciding when to acknowledge the revolutions that are happening around the world.
References
Harman, C. (n.d.). How can society be changed? Retrieved on October 2, 2005 from http://www.comcen.com.au/%7Emarcn/redflag/archive/harman/hmw/hmw8.doc.
John Kenneth Galbraith Quotes. Retrieved on October 2, 2005 from www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ quotes/j/johnkennet166468.html.
Kautsky. K. (1934). Marxism and Bolshevism: Democracy and Dictatorship (Chapter II). Retrieved on October 2, 2005 from http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1934/bolshevism/ch02.htm.
Locke, J. (1690). Second Treatise of Civil Government. Retrieved on October 2, 2005 from http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/2nd-contents.html.
MultiEducation Inc. (n.d.). US Civics. Retrieved on October 2, 2005 from http://www.multied.com/Civics/R.html
