"World politics": "Spotlight on the issue of "Revolution" today! (First part)

Le 19 décembre 2011 par IvoireBusiness - Today, although "Revolutions" are associated with the modern world, they have long been a preoccupation of

students of politics. However, the meaning of the term "Revolution" has changed over time...In the politics, contemporary philosopher "Aristote"(year 1962) was concerned with "Revolutions" in the city states of ancient Greece. But when "Aristote" spoke about "Revolution", he was merely referring to a transfer of power that involved a change in either the individuals in power, or the constitution. Such a definition would not be accepted by contemporary political scientists. Meanwhile, a revolution entails much broader and deeper alterations within society. Such changes may include the alteration of social values, social structures and political institutions, as well as changes in the personnel of the ruling elite or its class composition (reference: politics scientist "Cohan"-year 1975).Whether these changes have or have not taken within a society may take years to become apparent. This begs another question. There is no doubt that the former Soviet union underwent dramatic political change between 1984 and 1991, but did this mean that a "Revolution" take? Can an aggregation of political changes over a fairly lengthy period be considered to be a "Revolution"? If so, is there a time limit on what constitutes a "Revolution"?In the same strend and according to that crucial reality, the United states of America in 1989 was certainly very different from the United states of 1789, but to refer to a 200(2 hundred) revolution seems to be absurd! Historical judgment may be the only way to disentangle "Revolutionary" change from other transfers of power. As a matter of fact, what the media report today as a "Revolution" may be remembered as just another coup, and what appears to be a serie of radical reforms at the time may later be judged a "Revolution"."How can one explain revolutionary change today"?In the first two decades after the second world war, political scientists preoccupied with the problem of political stability rather than political change. Put simply, political stability was seen as "good" and political change was seen as potentially "bad". This cautious outlook was understandable. The world has just experienced the global consequences of two major liberal democracies:At that particular period of the european history,"Germany"(through nazism under "Adolphe Hitler 's rule), and "Italy"(through fascism under "Benito Mussolini's rule) succumbing to fascist dictatorship! With the defeat of fascism, a "new threat" to stability emerged in the form of communism. Political scientists also wanted to secure political stability in the newly independent nations of the third world particularly in post independent african nations...Soon after independence, many of these regimes had succumbed to irregular transfers of power till today!Let's take the conspicuous example on the current political turmoil and blatant illusion of democracy in the "Ivory Coast" since April 2011: a serie a democratic values grounded in the ivorian spirit and society since ever, to be pursued now in vain, but unfortunately never attained by the current regime of president "ALLASANE OUATTARA", lack of political good will and intention in the "Ivory Coast" right now! Therefore, the road to democracy in the "Ivory Coast" is so long now, and remains more foggy than ever! Moreover, the perspective of most political scientists in the world has now shifted nowadays. The study of political stability has given way to the study of political change. Meanwhile, students of change claim that nation- states never reach equilibrium! They are continually adapting to their environment. Where students of stability adopted a sociological approach, the study of political change necessarily employs a historical approach: To focus on this special issue of political change in our contemporary interdependent societies, but specially in the whole Africa, there are at least, four main approaches to the study of political instability and "Revolution":1-"the Marxist approach", 2-"Functionalism" 3-,"social psychology" and finally the comparative history.

(Yves T Bouazo)