Under What Circumstances, If Any, Might Revolution Be Justified?

The word revolution holds many connotations and implications, for it has been continuously evolving in a political sense since the beginning of societal structures and governments. However, in its more modern sense, revolution suggests dramatic episodes of political change, where a collective force recognizes the need for a change and is able to take action to create this in order to remove what they consider to be the impurities of the system, and replace it with what is presumed to be necessary. Revolutions can take many forms, varying between social and political, and violent and peaceful, yet while revolutions in this modern sense are deliberate acts, either violent or otherwise, against a given government, they can, under certain circumstances, be justified. Revolutions can most commonly be justified when the majority of the people under a government determine that there is a desperate need for change; when they are necessary for the stabilization of the state; and when the governing body deviates from its duty to protect the people and the state.

The justifications of revolution presented by various political theorists often refer to the establishment that is being overthrown and the reasons provided for the dissatisfaction shown towards the established power. This dissatisfaction may be the result of numerous things such as the failure of the government to act in accordance to what the majority feels is suitable, the government's failure to act in the best interest of the people, or the government's failure to maintain a state of stable economy and general well-being of the people. It is often suggested that the government of a society is primarily designed to protect both the state and the people of that state, thus placing a duty, or responsibility on the government to adhere to the desires of its people. This view that the governing body maintains a responsibility to both its people and its state, is a notion frequently put forth by various political thinkers.

In many societies the state is maintained under a type of democracy in which the governed people may decide the rules and regulations of their state through the vote of the majority. For example, when Jean-Jacques Rousseau states that, "law is the expression of the general will", he is suggesting that the governing body should merely act as a representative to display and enforce the desires of the majority of the people in the society, in order to protect their needs and desires. In his writing, "The Social Contract" Rousseau places much emphasis on the ruling of the general will (which in practice may simply be the majority's will), and discusses in depth the process through which decisions of law and rule shall be made. It is clear that this view of the general will would be of much importance in a society, since "the holders of the executive power are not the people's masters, but their officers"(Rousseau, 146); thus implying that the governors must act in accordance with the people's demands. If however, the governors attempt to usurp this sovereign power, then a revolution may be necessary. In order to maintain the social order, and to ensure that the rules are altered according to the general will, Rousseau explains that general assemblies should be periodically held so as to address any desired alterations. In this sense, when the people are simply not happy with the present form of government, the revolution need not be violent for at the opening of every one of these assemblies so described by Rousseau, the first question to be asked is; "Does it please the sovereign to maintain the present form of government?"(Rousseau, 148). If the answer to such question should be 'no', then immediate change will occur. While Rousseau does not specifically mention democracy, this form of rule in which the decision of the majority prevails, allows for the change of the governing body simply by a vote. Under such conditions it seems unlikely that revolution would need justification, for the situation in which the majority are discontented with the form of government should be easily resolved through an assembly and a revolution never occur. However, Rousseau does maintain that the decision of the majority can alter according to just one vote, thus he fails to provide a solution for the possible circumstance in which the large minority are discontented with the present form of government; a situation that may easily lead to revolutionary circumstances.

Yet along with the justifications of change based on the will of the majority, there is the notion, as briefly addressed by Rousseau, that the governing body holds a responsibility to its people. This concept is one that is addressed to a large extent by John Locke. For example, in his Second Treatise of Government Locke makes it clear that the governing legislative is created and given power simply through the trust given to it by the subjects. It mentions that this trust is placed in the legislative for a reason: the protection of the people's liberties and properties. Thus, if this responsibility is neglected or opposed, then the trust must be fortified, and the power given to those who initially gave it; the people. Because it is the people who initially delegate their trust, Locke suggests that, "there remains still in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative to act contrary to the trust reposed in them"(Locke, 149). Much of Locke's writing is concentrated on the idea that it is the people themselves who decide upon giving their trust to the legislative, and that the subject will enter a society and consent to abide by the rules and laws established through their trust, for their own good. Due to this notion, Locke ascertains very clearly that the people will "always have the right to...rid themselves of those who invade this fundamental, sacred, and unalterable law of self-preservation, for which they entered into society"(Locke, 149). With such precise a statement Locke is justifying a dramatic episode of political change, by displaying the relationship between the legislative and those being governed as a duty of responsibility, where the legislative is compelled to act as is deemed appropriate by the trust placed in them by the people.

However, while Locke does blatantly justify revolution as previously described, he does also recognize that there are limitations. For example, he believes that under the circumstance that an individual, or a small minority of people feel that they have personally been wronged by the legislative, there is no point in attempting to resist or to fight back for there is little realistic chance that they will be successful. This notion suggests that revolution is certainly not the solution to disputes and minor discrepancies, for in