Are violent revolutions a better means of securing human rights for all people than gradual reforms?

Question

give your opinion on how successful violent revolutions are in guaranteeing human rights, such as freedom from slavery and freedom to vote and participate in the government. What are the limits of revolution? Is there a better, more subtle way of attaining rights, or is revolution a necessary first step?

Answer 1

Like mot things in History and Politics I think the answer is more nuanced than a binary yes violence is necessary, or no violence is not necessary. I think the better way to think about this question is the conditions that violence indicates: popular frustration and a perceived need to change. I do not believe that people are inherently violent, but I do believe that people inherently care, want to be heard and acknowledged. Thus, when something that people care deeply about is threatened and the powers that be don't listen to or acknowledge the peoples concern, then the violence comes. Not before.

As evidence for this I think we can point to the fact that-- so far as I am aware-- no revolutions begin with violence. The begin with more conciliatory first steps like trying to talk to the government or the metropole to voice the concerns of the revolutionaries. The French revolution didn't begin with the The Terror or the execution of the king. The French Revolution began with the Calling of the Estate general and the Tennis Court Oath.

As for limits on revolution? I don't think there are any. They can be fairly conservative or even regressive revolutions that strengthen the hand of the upper class (Like the American revolution or a few of the English Revolutions), they can be wildly liberal and totally upend the status quo (like the Haitian revolution), or they can do both at different time (like the French revolution). The limits of revolution are the limits of human imagination, and every revolution seems to expand that imagination one step further.

Lastly, is there a better way of attaining rights than revolution? I'm not sure, and it largely depends on how we define a revolution. If a revolution is a shift in government control than I would say a hearty no, and in fact that democracies do this once every 2-8 years. But, if revolution means a total reconstruction of government or culture then our answer becomes more tricky. Rebuilding governments is hard, and, as many revolutions have shown us throughout history, it can often lead to a decrease, not an increase in rights. On the other hand its important to seek equity and basic rights for all.