On Revolutions

Both the Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution are somewhat misnamed. Edmund Burke called the Glorious Revolution a “revolution averted” and the same could be said of the American Revolution. Indeed the American Revolution would be much better described as a secession (no, secessionists, I’m not on your side) – the various states decided to secede from the control of Great Britain and her king and parliament after their blatant abuse of power.

The distinctive difference in these two “revolutions” from all others in history is that the governance of Great Britain and the United States did not change all that much in principle. Great Britain saw the greatest change in switching from the king as sovereign to parliamentary sovereignty, a change long in the making. The colonies in America maintained their various state governments which became sovereign after the revolution. In both cases, the “revolution” was focused at regaining long-standing rights or preventing the abrogation of rights. What is important to observe is that both societies remained relatively the same and many aspects of their government remained the same.

This pattern of retaining the structure of society and government is not seen the French Revolution and the subsequent “modern” revolutions. These revolutions are inevitable connected with gross human rights abuses in their attempt to overthrow societal hierarchies and the government. These revolutions, always utopian, result in greater oppression and horror than the regimes that preceded them. One need only look at the Reign of Terror in France, the Bolshevik Revolution, the reigns of Lenin and Stalin, the communist take-over of China, China’s Cultural Revolution, etc. to see the destructive nature of true revolutions.

Thus, the current journalistic and popular tendency to view the revolutions in Africa and the Middle East as positive should cause distress to students of history and human nature. This region of the world is especially susceptible to repressive tyranny given its history and the religion of Islam. One need only to look at the nation of Iran to see the insanity of believing that a revolution in this region of the world will bring about good. Though the aim of the revolution may be gaining freedom, trying to gain freedom by overthrowing society and government only leads to chaos. This chaos can only (at least historically has only) been fixed by the establishment of another regime. This new regime, cognizant of the fact that it was put in place by the mob and the overthrow of the previous regime, enacts as harsh or harsher controls on the population in a bid to maintain power longer than the previous regime. Throw in religious fanaticism and one creates an ultra-repressive regime like the Taliban where men cannot shave their beards, where girls cannot go to school, and where women have the approximate social standing and rights as animals.

The U.S. needs to learn that the world is not entirely ready for universal democracy and that democracy does not always result in freedom. Secular regimes are both in the better interests of their citizens than religious regimes and, especially if supportive of U.S. interests, the best for the interests of the United States. Given the proclivity of governments in this area to devolve into religious regimes, the U. S. government ought to support the secular regimes that exist. We don’t need another Iran.