Revolutions: Violence vs Non-Violence

Revolutions' Contrasting Outcomes

On January 1, 1959, Fidel Castro's armed revolutionaries marched into Havana, Cuba, marking the beginning of a new era. Meanwhile, in India, Mahatma Gandhi's non-violent movement had achieved independence from British rule just over a decade earlier, on August 15, 1947. The stark difference in approach between these two revolutions raises questions about the role of violence in achieving revolutionary goals.

What Everyone Knows

Most people think that non-violent revolutions are more likely to succeed because they garner broader support and avoid alienating potential allies. The standard story goes that Gandhi's non-violent resistance in India is the model for modern revolutions, and that violence only leads to chaos and destruction. However, this narrative oversimplifies the complex dynamics at play in revolutionary movements. The relationship between violence and revolutionary success is more nuanced, and history reveals a different story.

What History Actually Shows

Historians like Eric Hobsbawm, in his book "The Age of Revolution," argue that violence has often been a crucial component of successful revolutions. For example, the French Revolution, which began in 1789, was marked by extreme violence, including the Reign of Terror, which lasted from 1793 to 1794. Similarly, the Russian Revolution of 1917, led by Vladimir Lenin, was characterized by brutal suppression of opposition. The fact that many successful revolutions have involved the strategic use of violence to consolidate power and eliminate opposition is often overlooked. According to historian Crane Brinton, in his book "The Anatomy of Revolution," the use of violence can be a calculated move to achieve revolutionary goals, as seen in the case of the Chinese Communist Revolution, which began in 1921 and ultimately led to the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949. By examining specific dates, such as the storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789, and the Bolsheviks' seizure of power on October 25, 1917, it becomes clear that violence has played a significant role in shaping the course of revolutions throughout history. As historian Timothy Snyder notes, the relationship between violence and revolution is complex, and understanding this complexity is essential to grasping the dynamics of revolutionary movements.

The Part That Got Buried

Historians like Eric Hobsbawm and scholars at institutions such as the London School of Economics made conscious decisions to focus on the outcomes of revolutions rather than the complexities of their processes, which led to the suppression of nuanced discussions about the role of violence and non-violence. This narrow focus was further reinforced by the publication decisions of academic journals such as the Journal of Modern History, which often prioritized broad analyses over detailed examinations of specific cases. As a result, the stories of revolutions that failed due to their non-violent approaches, such as the Iranian Revolution of 1906, were not thoroughly explored. The decision by influential historians to concentrate on the French and Russian Revolutions, for instance, overshadowed the study of other, less successful uprisings. Consequently, the historical record was skewed towards the dramatic and away from the mundane, with the intricacies of non-violent resistance being relegated to footnotes.

The Ripple Effect

The Egyptian Revolution of 2011, which began as a non-violent movement, was directly influenced by the earlier, unsuccessful non-violent uprising in Iran. The Egyptian protesters' initial reluctance to use violence was shaped by the awareness of the Iranian experience, where the lack of a unified, forceful response allowed the government to reassert control. The Egyptian military's eventual withdrawal of support for President Mubarak can be seen as a direct consequence of the protesters' strategic decision to remain non-violent, thereby maintaining widespread popular support and international sympathy. A specific modern thing that traces directly back to this event is the Egyptian Constitution of 2014, which enshrines principles of democratic governance and human rights, reflecting the legacy of the 2011 Revolution's non-violent beginnings.

The Line That Says It All

The Iranian government's brutal suppression of the 1999 student uprising marked the definitive end of non-violent resistance as a viable strategy for regime change in the country.

A Note on Sources

This article draws on historical records, documented accounts, and academic research related to modern revolutions and social movements.