DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REVOLUTION AND COUP D’ÉTAT

INTRODUCTION

The concept of change is typically associated with, and a catchword of, progressive theorists and practitioners of politics with left-wing agendas. However, conservative thinkers since Edmund Burke have emphasized that change is the crucial means of governments to facilitate the preservation of the social order. Political and social revolutions occur throughout history.  They are usually the result of poor or oppressive government, and many times end in a worse situation than before.  However, some political revolutions can be seen in a positive way, with the government becoming more responsive to their people's needs.  Whatever the case, political revolutions are major turning points in a country's history. This work will be looking at the conditions that bring about political and social change in the society. And also differentiate between coup d’état and revolution.

SOCIAL CHANGE

The meaning of the term “Social Change” can be better understood if we will discuss few definitions formulated by the eminent sociologists. Some of the important definitions are stated below.

Maclver and Page, “Social change refers to a process responsive to many types of changes, to changes in man-made conditions of life” to changes in the attitude and beliefs of men and to changes that go beyond the human control to the biological and physical nature of things.

H.T. Mazumdar, “Social change may be defined as a new fashion or mode, either modifying or replacing the old, in the life of people or in the operation of society.”

From the analysis of the above definitions we come to know that the phenomenon of social change is not simple but complex. It is very vast and a complicated process. It is a process in which we always face problems in its conditions, forms, limitations, direction, sources, causes as well as consequences.

POLITICAL CHANGE (REVOLUTION)

Political revolution is the overthrow of a government or ruling power by the people or a small group of dedicated insiders. It is usually caused by unjust actions on the part of the ruling party. Political revolution can be accomplished through peaceful resistance, but it is always defined by a desire for an eventual accomplishment of a fundamental change in a country's political organization or governmental constitution.

A political revolution, in the Trotskyist theory, is an upheaval, in which the government is replaced, or the form of government altered, but in which property relations are predominantly left intact. The revolutions in France in 1830 and 1848 are often cited as political revolutions.

CONDITIONS THAT CAUSES SOCIAL CHANGE

Social Structure

The structure of a society affects its rate of change in subtle and not immediately apparent ways. A society which vests great authority in the very old people as classical China did for centuries is likely to be conservative and stable. According to Ottenberg a society which stresses conformity and trains the individual to be highly responsive to the group such as the Zunis is less receptive to the change than a society like the Ileo who are highly individualistic and tolerate considerable cultural variability. A highly centralized bureaucracy is very favorable to the promotion and diffusion of change although bureaucracy has sometimes been used in an attempt to suppress change usually with no more than temporary success. When a culture is very highly integrated so that each element is rightly interwoven with all the others in a mutually interdependent system change is difficult and costly. But when the culture is less highly integrated so that work, play, family, religion and other activities are less dependent upon one another change is easier and more frequent. A tightly structured society wherein every person's roles, duties, privileges and obligations are precisely and rigidly defined is less given to changes than a more loosely structured society wherein roles, lines of authority, privileges and obligations are more open to individual rearrangement

Isolation and Contact

Societies located at world crossroads have always been centers of change. Since most new traits come through diffusion, those societies in closest contact with other societies are likely to change most rapidly. In ancient times of overland transport, the land bridge connecting Asia, Africa and Europe was the centre of civilizing change. Later sailing vessels shifted the centre to the fringes of the Mediterranean Sea and still later to the north- west coast of Europe. Areas of greatest intercultural contact are the centers of change. War and trade have always brought intercultural contact and today tourism is adding to the contacts between cultures says Greenwood. Conversely isolated areas are centers of stability, conservatism and resistance to change. The most primitive tribes have been those who were the most isolated like the polar Eskimos or the Aranda of Central Australia.

Population Changes

A population change is itself a social change but also becomes a casual factor in further social and cultural changes. When a thinly settled frontier fills up with people the hospitality pattern fades away, secondary group relations multiply, institutional structures grow more elaborate and many other changes follow. A stable population may be able to resist change but a rapidly growing population must migrate, improve its productivity or starve. Great historic migrations and conquests of the Huns, Vikings and many others have arisen from the pressure of a growing population upon limited resources. Migration encourages further change for it brings a group into a new environment subjects it to new social contacts and confronts it with new problems. No major population change leaves the culture unchanged.

Technologic Factors:

The technological factors represent the conditions created by man which have a profound influence on his life. In the attempt to satisfy his wants, fulfill his needs and to make his life more comfortable man creates civilization. Technology is a byproduct of civilization .When the scientific knowledge is applied to the problems in life it becomes technology. Technology is a systematic knowledge which is put into practice that is to use tools and run machines to serve human purpose. Science and technology go together. In utilizing the products of technology man brings social change. The social effects of technology are far-reaching. According to Karl Marx even the formation of social relations and mental conceptions and attitudes are dependent upon technology. He has regarded technology as a sole explanation of social change. W.F Ogburn says technology changes society by changing our environment to which we in turn adapt. These changes are usually in the material environment and the adjustment that we make with these changes often modifies customs and social institutions. A single invention may have innumerable social effects. Radio for example has One of the most extreme expressions of the concern over the independence of technology is found in Jacques Ellul's 'the technological society'. Ellul claims that in modern industrial societies technologism has engulfed every aspect of social existence in much the same way Catholicism did in the middle ages. The loss of human freedom and the large-scale destruction of human beings are due to the increasing use of certain types of technology which has begun to threaten the life support systems of the earth as a whole.

Conflict and Change

Tension and conflict in a society also produce change. Karl Marx saw class conflict as the engine that drives societies from one historical era to another. Social class has been considered by Marx as a means to social change. The two classes identified were the capitalists and the workers. Both these classes are based on inequality (We have already discussed it under "social stratification"). Social classes are located in the different relationships of people to the means of production. The relationships become important if a group becomes conscious and organized for action. Out of these two groups capitalists oppose social change, whereas the workers want to change the society. According to Marx the conflict between the two classes is a means to social change. The two classes cannot remain in conflict for all the time. The conflicting situation has to be resolved, and what ever the `give and take' for resolving the conflict, the new situation will be different from the previous one a social change new relationships.

CAUSES OF POLITICAL CHANGE (REVOLUTION)

For Aristotle, revolutions arise from inequalities, numerical or qualitative--from a numerical mass claiming equality denied them, or from a minority claiming a superiority denied them. A revolution may result either in a complete change of polity, or only in a modification of the existing one. An oligarchy is less permanent than a democracy, owing to factions within the oligarchicalbody.

In all revolutions, the conditions which leads up to them is the desire of the many for equality, and the desire of the minority for effective superiority. The purposes with which they are set on foot are profit, honour, or avoidance of loss or dishonour. The inciting occasions are many; jealousy of those who have wealth and honour, official arrogance, fear of the law or of its abuse, personal rivalries, failure of the middle class to maintain a balance, race antagonisms, antagonism of localities, and others.

In democracies, revolutions are due mainly to demagogic attacks on wealth, leading the wealthy of combine, and they result in the establishment of an oligarchy or of a tyranny, a 'popular' military chief seizing the power for himself; or sometimes in replacing a moderate by an extreme democracy.

In oligarchies they spring from the oppressive conduct of the oligarchy, or from dissensions among the oligarchical body--e.g. exclusion of those who think themselves entitled to membership; attraction of the role of demagogue for individual members of the oligarchy; employment of mercenary troops, whose captain seizes power.

In aristocracies they arise from the jealousy of those excluded from power, personal ambitions, great inequality of wealth. In these, and in constitutional governments--the most stable of all--the main cause is the incomplete fusion of the three criteria, wealth, numbers and merit. The comparative stability of constitutions comes from the greater relative weight of numbers. They are, however, more liable to be revolutionised by external pressure. Equality in proportion to merit and security of rights are the true conditions of permanence.

For the preservation of polities, minor illegalities must be particularly guarded against: in oligarchies, personal rivalries, abuse of power by individuals (making short tenures of office advisable), insolence of privilege, tricks to deceive the masses; in oligarchies and constitutional states, excessive concentration of power in individuals or classes; oppression of the wealthy minority in democracies, and of the poor majority in oligarchies.

OF monarchy, the two types are the regal and the tyrannic. The king is the protector of the wealthy against spoliation, of the poor against arrogance. His own or his family's virtues or services have given him the kingship; his aim is excellence, and his authority is maintained by a citizen bodyguard. The tyrant is not a protector; his aim is his personal gratification.

Under monarchies, injustice and arrogance are the causes of insurrection, or fear, or contempt for incompetence, coupled with ambition. Tyrannies are overthrown by collision with external forces, or by private intrigues in the tyrant's entourage, and generally in the same sort of way as extreme oligarchies or extreme democracies. Kingships are endangered by intrigues in the royal family, by the King's personal incompetence, or by his developing tyrannical attributes. Hereditary monarchies are in particular danger from incompetents succeeding. But in a complex society, kingship proper is all but impossible.

A kingship is maintained by the royal self-restraint. The tyrant relies on the material and moral degradation, incapacity and lack of mutual confidence among his subjects, which he fosters by espionage, executions, taxation and the encouragement of licence. Occasionally, the tyrant will seek to secure his position by playing the part and assuming the attributes of a king proper. The shrewd tyrant sees to it that he has the favour of the rich or of the poor.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REVOLUTION AND COUP D’ÉTAT

Revolution

 Most uses of this particular form of the word deal with the overthrow of a government by the people being governed. However, this word is really synonymous with a change. The change could be in government, a change in society, a change in technology, or even a change in the way people think. Just about any radical change can be considered a revolution and there have been many revolutions over the course of history that had nothing to do with violence or insurrection.

Coup d’état

A coup d’état, also known as just a coup, is a very interesting French word that is tantamount with the overthrow of a government. Commonly the actions are brought about from within the government. Contrary to a revolution in the government, which is done by the people, a coup d’état is often comprised of political figures or high-ranking members of the military. These military or government officials try to take control of the government for themselves or try to create a new government. Usually the conspirators consist of a small group of individuals. Most coup do involve some level of violence as forces is often use to take control but a select few have historically been bloodless or at least as bloodless as possible.

CONCLUSION

We generally apply the term revolution to sudden political changes, but the expression may be employed to denote all sudden transformations. A revolution may finally become a belief, but it often commences under the action of perfectly rational motives: the suppression of crying abuses, of a detested despotic government, or an unpopular sovereign, etc.

The sudden political revolutions which strike the historian most forcibly are often the least important. The great revolutions are those of manners and thought. Changing the name of a government does not transform the mentality of a people. To overthrow the institutions of a people is not to re-shape its soul.

REFERENCES

Bates, Robert. 2001. Prosperity and Violence. New York: WW Norton.

Huntington, Samuel P. 1968. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press

Luttwak, Edward (1979). Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook. Harvard University Press.

Leiden, Carl and Schmitt, Karl; "The Politics of Violence - Revolution in the Modern World"; Prentice Hall, 1968.

Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.