In class we covered Edmund Burke and his ideals that encompass what we refer to today as conservatism. Burke's piece, Reflections on the Revolution in France, was written in a time when revolution was a looming possibility in Great Britain. Burke had a very strong opinion that such a revolution should not take place and also provided his own concerns on the ongoing French Revolution. He believed that the traditional path was the best path and innovation was only a risk that was not worth taking. When he speaks of the French revolution, he predicts that great distress and violence can only ensue from such an uprising.
I have a few bones to pick with Mr. Burke. He proposes that revolution is not worth the effort and that any deviation from the traditional way or a previous way will only result in pandemonium. I will not argue that a revolution is a clean and organized process of change. In fact, it has proven to be quite a messy ordeal. We can look back at history and find that whenever there is revolution, bloodshed and disorganization follows, but I do believe, unlike Burke, that it is worth the struggle. There are times when the traditional way is not serving the people and change is needed. I believe this now more than ever with all the corruption that is happening in the world. I do want to show that change is possible no matter how drastic or difficult it may seem to achieve and it is always worth it.
Writers like Burke and More encouraged people to be complacent with their government in order to keep the people from thinking for themselves and demanding change. Of course the people with the most advantageous positions in a system do not hope for that, so they do their best to maintain the status quo. They can be so convincing that people begin to believe that tradition is the only way to go. I am not saying that traditional ways are always wrong, but people within a system can definitely fail to deliver no matter how efficient the system is designed to be. Action must be taken and it only takes the awareness of the general public to realize this and initiate a movement.
One of the best examples of this was seen in Egypt very recently. The Egyptian revolution began in January 2011. I do hope that most of you have heard about it as it was an incredible display of bravery and honor. Despite the government's best efforts to bring down the people, unfortunately with violence, people continued to pursue their goal of government reform. They attempted to get rid of a regime that had been in operation for many years and no one would have ever thought they would see it's end, but it happened. The people were able to take down Hosni Mubarak's regime and hold their own elections. I share with them the belief that it is better to die in the pursuit of freedom than it is to live in oppression. Of course, the Egyptians are not the only ones to do this, and it is currently a movement across the Arab countries. It is truly inspiring to see that revolution is possible, although it is not easy.
Another message to Burke would be that for every great tradition there was innovation. Nothing has been established without it and therefore this makes him a little hypocritical. If he loves his traditional ways so much, than he should realize it had to have come from somewhere. So if people want change, then I say go for it. I say it is worth the struggle and complacency is only a mechanism to suppress freedom of thought.
Sources:
www.aljazeera.com


Tala,
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your post. I think that while change is not always easy, it is important for the evolution of human society. The only thing I would question in your argument about the revolution in Egypt is what makes these revolutionaries better suited to run a country than Gaddafi? Burke would argue that they wouldn't know how to rule the country or what was best for it and that is why the dictatorship should stay in place. I don't necessarily agree with that statement, but I thought I would just throw it out there to play a Burkean Devil's advocate.
Thanks for your comment, Kevin. To respond to your question I would say that the fact that this revolution was initiated and carried out by the people, and a vast majority of them at that, is what makes it a legitimate revolution. The regime consisted of only a handful of people and its only support came from people who were in fear of persecution. The people themselves are the only ones who should decide how to be governed. Of course, there were several reasons why the regime was corrupt and unfit, which can be seen by the violence that ensued in response to the people's uprising. I also want to point out that Gaddafi was the Libyan ruler and a part of a completely different revolution. The Egyptian people were trying to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak. Thanks again for your response, I know I didn't fully answer, but hopefully you got my point.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTala,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that revolution/mass change is almost never easy, but is often warranted. I think the example you used of Egypt and the other Arab Spring countries was a very positive one (although the situation in Egypt seems to become more and more precarious each day); however, I think it is important to point out that failed revolutions can lead to unnecessary death and reprisal by the government. For example, Che Guevara attempted and failed to start communist revolutions in both Congo and Bolivia, eventually leading to his capture and death. Revolutionary action must be carefully examined before it is carried out.