1. Mostly, political change happens on the initiative of the ruling class or with its consent. But sometimes it happens through
other social elements and forces, which succeed in defeating the previously ruling element... the thing that is commonly called "revolution."
In the old days, such change was one "clique" replacing another, as in classical Greece and Rome, or an ongoing war between rival gangs as in the Italian cities of the Middle Ages.
2. With republican Rome and its solid "juridical defense" civil strife was only occasional. But after Octavian won the civil wars between regular armies the standing army thereafter assumed the power of changing the head of state.
In feudal Europe civil conflict and revolutions were conducted as wars between factions of barons. In Germany the election of a new emperor would divide into parties and contest the election. In France, Burgundians and Armagnacs "fought for possession of the person of king or dauphin." And in England the feudal barons famously fought the Wars of the Roses in two factions.
3. Then there is China, that developed early from a feudal to a bureaucratic structure.
Whenever a dynasty had greatly declined in efficiency... some unruly governor, or some intrepid adventurer, would... defeat the government troops and... dispossess the old dynasty and found a new one.
The new dynasty would be energetic for a while, and then weaken, and the process would repeat itself.
4. In Europe there was a long era of "a subject people [rising] against its oppressors." Think "Sweden against Denmark... Holland against Spain... Spain against France." And then the American colonists and the Great Rebellion against Charles I in England,
5. Another type of rebellion is the "rural or peasant rebellion," such as revolts in Russia early in the reign of Catherine II, The Vendée in 1793, the Monmouth rebellion in England just before the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
6. But with today's states, with their "complicated organization, their bureaucracies, their standing armies", things are not as easy. The complicated French revolutions show why.
The revolution of 1789 "was a real collapse of the classes and political forces that had ruled France down to that time." It included a complete collapse of government authority and regiments in the army going over to the revolution. Power "belonged in turn to the clique, or to the man, who could get himself followed to Paris with a show of armed force, whether he were a Lafayette... or a Danton." What mattered was to impersonate "the symbol, or the institution" of France through various coups d'etat that led to the Napoleonic empire.
But what about the French revolutions of 1830, 1848, and 1870? It starts with a small battle against troops in the capital.
Next, the mob, armed and unarmed, puts sovereigns and ministers to flight, dissolves the assemblies and riotously forms a government.
Mosca attributes this repeated regime weakness to "over-bureaucratization." The army and the bureaucrats were perfectly happy to follow any government, "pleasing anyone who was seated at the top." What everyone wanted, including ordinary people, was "just a government, not any particular government." As long as the new government prevents any radical change, the conservative elements in society are content.
And, throughout the 19th century "young people in Europe were taught... that many of the most important conquests of modern life had been obtained as a consequence of the" revolution of 1789. So revolution was not experienced as an unmitigated evil. And, of course, in countries with a successful revolution, everyone is "obliged to glorify the one good, the one holy insurrection from which they sprang themselves."
7. Revolutionary societies, like the Masons, do a lot to prepare "intellectual and moral foundations for revolutions", but are not helpful on the day, which requires some catalyzing event, such as "The disappointment of some great hope, a sudden economic depression, a defeat suffered by a nation's army."
If the rebellious group has developed a permanent organization, and knows how to take advantage of such a moment, it can hope for success.
However in our day, because of standing armies and their enormous expense, "no government can be overthrown by force unless the men who are in charge of it are themselves irresolute or lose their heads" or shrink from "repression involving bloodshed." And if the head of government is irresolute, so will be the underlings.
Written before the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, we can see how Mosca's ideas were applied in spades in the faltering last days of old Russia.
Next: Standing Armies
Or back to: Contents
No comments:
Post a Comment