TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
So What Makes A Revolution End Well?
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [51]  1
2
3

So What Makes A Revolution End Well?:

Pro-Freedom Fanatic
Unless you consider oppression acceptable, not being oppressed anymore is worth a whole lotta bloodshed.
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
 27 Game Chainsaw, Wed, 28th Dec '11 5:37:00 AM from sunshine and rainbows!
The Shadows Devour You.
A revolution which doesn't end with

a) people getting silently dragged out of their homes by the revolutionaries in the dead of night (or at any time) for opposing the revolution.

b) One which leaves people with greater freedoms and securities than they had under the previous regime (as in, an aversion of Meet the New Boss, same as the old.)

c) One which doesn't wreck the country and leave large parts of it in anarchy/starving to death.
[up][up]It isn't of course, but that's not the only criterion available. It's nearly impossible to secure the implementation of a new system without preventing the old one from gaining ground again. In desperate times (which is what revolutions are born out of, and what they tend to create), harsh measures will end up being used to secure power, repression being one of them. So, we can't rely on that as the end-all-be-all of revolutionary government, since counter-revolution is a threat that needs to be extinguished before you can move on, unfortunately, by any means necessary ("Necessary" being the key word here).

I would say, in order for a revolution to truly be considered successful, it needs to:

  1. Provide greater safety, prosperity and liberty for its populace than its predecessor.
  2. Achieve the goals it set out to accomplish at the point of victory. (duh)
  3. Uphold its revolutionary principles whenever doing so does not conflict with criterion #1.
  4. Ensure the continued existence of the revolutionary system, where doing so does not come into conflict with criterion #1.

Now, there are probably others I'm missing here, but nobody can deny that this is a good starting point.

edited 28th Dec '11 7:35:04 AM by tropetown

 29 Major Tom, Wed, 28th Dec '11 6:43:36 AM Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Eye'm the cutest!
Had there been a revolutionary coalition (like in Libya),

According to some reports (especially concerning the Misrata and Nafusa factions), that revolution hasn't ended well either. It's fallen into reprisals, power seizures and basically fighting each other.

Maybe it will move past it, maybe it won't but at the moment it is not on the path of a well-done revolution ending up in a good government.

edited 28th Dec '11 6:46:50 AM by MajorTom

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."
 30 Octo, Wed, 28th Dec '11 6:49:22 AM from Germany
Prince of Dorne
.*shrugs* Beats Gadaffi. So far the fights are not as bad as after the external toppling of Hussein in Iraq, in any case.
Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken.

Unrelated ME1 Fanfic
[up][up] I doubt the Libyan Revolution will end well; they're already showing a tendency toward genocidal repression, actually. The US will probably continue to support the new government, though, if they can secure the Libyans as reliable Middle Eastern allies, provided that an alliance with them stops being worth the percieved benefits (so, basically, business as usual).

Hmm. Some would argue that the only revolutions that end well are those (such as the American Revolution) that weren't very revolutionary to begin with. A too-rapid change in the structure of society is usually a bad idea.
Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
[up] The ones that argue that are typically counter-revolutionaries. tongue
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
 34 Major Tom, Wed, 28th Dec '11 7:38:47 AM Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Eye'm the cutest!
^ Revolution for the sake of revolution has historically never been a good thing.

The most successful revolutions can indeed be argued they didn't revolutionize all that much. In America we had been culturally de facto independent and self-governing for decades (if not more than a century) prior to 1775 and the Battles of Lexington and Concord. Making the jump to true independence and self-government wasn't such a big leap as deposing a monarchy and instituting a radically different form of government. (Like what the French did as well as the Bolsheviks.)
"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."
 35 Game Chainsaw, Wed, 28th Dec '11 7:51:40 AM from sunshine and rainbows!
The Shadows Devour You.
Bloody failures can sometimes serve one purpose; everyone is so terrified of it happening again that they don't block reforms any more for fear of building up the powderkeg again.
According to some reports (especially concerning the Misrata and Nafusa factions), that revolution hasn't ended well either. It's fallen into reprisals, power seizures and basically fighting each other.

Maybe it will move past it, maybe it won't but at the moment it is not on the path of a well-done revolution ending up in a good government.

I'd start worrying when big-name officials like Mustafa Abdul Jalil or the interim Prime Minister start publicly endorsing such things. IIRC, they haven't so far.

Well, of course they haven't; they're still banking on foreign goodwill to keep their government together. The fact that this is taking place at all is a worrying trend; it's too early to tell whether or not it will continue, but it still isn't a good sign.

Well, I suppose two revolutions you can compare are the French Revolution and the so-called Bloodless Revolution. The Bloodless Revolution wasn't bloodless, but it was a lot less violent. What made the difference?
"You fail to grasp the basic principles of mad science. Common sense would be cheating." - Narbonic
 39 Octo, Wed, 28th Dec '11 4:22:07 PM from Germany
Prince of Dorne
Eh, the so-called "Glorious Revolution" was really more one of the wars of succession typical for that time than a real revolution. Nobody inside England really fought against James, it's just nobody fought for him against the Dutch troops, either...
Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken.

Unrelated ME1 Fanfic
Ah, darn. Hmmmmm...well, I'm sure there's something to compare to the french revolution, which really was quite gruesome. How about the Velvet Revolution?
"You fail to grasp the basic principles of mad science. Common sense would be cheating." - Narbonic
 41 Octo, Wed, 28th Dec '11 4:35:31 PM from Germany
Prince of Dorne
I guess that works, just like the similar events in East Germany, Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria. Only in Romania it turned out ugly.

One could maybe also name the Carnation Revolution, though that was a coup d'etat and no revolution - but it did overthrow a revolution, without much bloodshed, and did lead to a democracy.
Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken.

Unrelated ME1 Fanfic
Can't forget the Cedar Revolution.
"You fail to grasp the basic principles of mad science. Common sense would be cheating." - Narbonic
 43 Radical Taoist, Thu, 29th Dec '11 5:52:17 AM from the #GUniverse
It's pick your favourite revolution day!

If less violent/non-violent revolutions count, the Indian independence movement was awesome.

My favourite though, is the somewhat more violent South African Anti Apartheid movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress

scratching at .8, just hopin'
Non-violent revolutions absolutely count. There is too much historical blindness as to the effectiveness of nonviolent action.
 46 Game Chainsaw, Thu, 29th Dec '11 11:11:58 AM from sunshine and rainbows!
The Shadows Devour You.
Gonna have to second the Indian Independence movement. Although things... worked out less well between India and Pakistan afterwards. I'd like to say the British of the time should've made sure that didn't happen but I'm under the impression that if the Brits hadn't left at the time there would've been violence. sad
I'm a fan of the Yellow Revolution myself.

Eh, not so successful for the poor in Philiphines, politics still dominated by Rich Oligarchy ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gevTmyWtHVo ). And Philiphines have second EDSA sometime after that. It is a successful revolution, but not the best one.

 48 Radical Taoist, Thu, 29th Dec '11 9:42:02 PM from the #GUniverse
scratching at .8, just hopin'
Well yeah, there ain't a revolution on earth that will singlehandedly end the division between the haves and have-nots. That's always gonna be an ongoing fight.
Raven Wilder
I'd say being recognized as a legitimate government by foreign countires is pretty important.
"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko
 50 ATC, Fri, 30th Dec '11 12:30:24 PM from The Library of Kiev
Was Aliroz the Confused
As far as I understand it, the term "revolution" is defined as a movement to destroy the status quo and its government.

Under that definition, once the government has been overthrown and the status quo changed, the revolution must either

1: end (having no government to revolt against and having achieved their goal of changing the status quo) or

2: revolt against the new societal status quo.

The creation of a new establishment, government, and societal order must then either come after the revolution has ended (1) or be in conflict with the revolution (2).

A revolution ends well if the post-revolution establishment is good enough that there is no reason to revolt.
If you want any of my avatars, just Pm me

I'd truly appreciate any avatar of a reptile sleeping in a Nice Hat

Read Elmer Kelton books
Total posts: 51
 1
2
3


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy