About revolution

 

That word “revolution” is an ambiguous word; Sometimes it suggests the meaning of “change”, and at other times it suggests “sudden or striking change,” but in many cases it may go further than that.

 

Meanings of Revolution

In the language: "Revolution” means rebellion against injustice, and the fundamental change in the political and social conditions carried out by the people in a country.

 

In historical writing: "Revolution" has been given as a name to a large number of phenomena that are different in severity and extend from any armed or unarmed movement against a regime, to movements that propose the overthrow and replacement of the regime. This makes it difficult to verify the term. For Hegel, He believes that revolution is a movement characterized by rejection and denial of the status quo, and that it is a reorganization of the relationship between the state and society on a rational basis. Crane Brinton defined it as a dynamic process characterized by the transition from one social structure to another, and that it is a violent change in the existing government in a way that exceeds the legal limit.

 

In classical thought: "Revolution" means, a fundamental change in the political and social conditions of a particular state, which did not bring about the means prescribed for that in the constitutional system of that state.

 

There are five factors that lead to the growth of political capacity and its development into revolution, which are: internal development dependent on external parties, a repressive, exclusionary, personal state, growing cultures of resistance and opposition to the regime, a growing economic crisis, a gap in international politics that leads to a temporary weakness in external control that allows the outbreak of a revolution. Without the ability of world powers to directly intervene.

 

culture!! gap!!

Yes; Perhaps this is where our problem originally lay during and after the revolution.

That resistance culture that had not yet matured enough to confront injustice, no matter how brutal its perpetrators were.

This gap, which we have neglected, is how the international system will deal with it when it realizes it and after it recovers from the shock.

In the midst of the events that accompanied that period, we neglected trying to understand the revolution in its local and international context, and the obstacles it might encounter.

 

What does this mean?!

So that we can understand these obstacles; Let us shed light on the understanding of the owners of the realist school - which has dominated international relations recently - of the revolution within the framework of the international environment. In this context, they tried to understand the relationship between the revolutionary state and the rest of the members of the international community to explain why the revolution pushed both sides to prefer the use of force. One of the theories they presented to explain this was the balance of power theory.

 

Its owners believe that states are mature actors seeking to survive, because there is no central, sovereign authority to protect them. International policies are based on a system of self-protection that considers security as its highest goal. Countries seek to increase their relative power without provoking others in a way that makes their position in the balance of power worse, whether this is done by increasing their power or weakening the power of others. Thus, war breaks out between countries when they exploit situations of power imbalance to improve their international positions or because of wrong calculations that the balance of power is in its favour.

 

This vision makes the revolution a cause of violence in one of two ways: either the revolution produces new opportunities for states to increase their capabilities, changing the state of the balance of power in a way that tempts them to exploit this opportunity to attack other countries, or vice versa, for the revolution to weaken it in a way that invites others to attack it. Hence, revolutions - from a realistic point of view - are a rift and collapse of a previously organized world.

 

All of this; In addition to the immaturity of the culture of resistance at home; It may explain international support for the coup in Egypt, the scenario of Gaddafi’s killing and international intervention in Libya, Decisive Storm in Yemen, and perhaps the decline of the Ennahdha Party in Tunisia. However; The national revolutionary forces in any of these countries should not retreat and become preoccupied with the international situation at the expense of the internal revolutionary situation, because the reality of the international system is not separate from the internal reality of its member states, not to mention that it has never been stable in a way that guarantees that the balance of power remains the same.

 

So; These revolutionary forces must continuously work to mature the culture of resistance within society, which is stimulated by other factors that support the emergence of the revolution and which grow in society without interference from the revolutionary forces, but rather by the action of the existing regime itself, which -as we mentioned- is internal development dependent on external parties.