Revolution and education as agents of governmental change in developing nations

Revolution, Education, And Modernization

Revolution, Education and Modernization

Is revolution an acceptable way to change government? Why or why not?

In 1776 the founding fathers of the United States faced a situation where this question was paramount among the interests of their fellow countrymen:

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation" ("The Declaration of Independence," 1776).

History shows that when the needs of a society are not being met revolution is generated from outside the existing system since it is that system that is perceived as the problem. Over the past two hundred and fifty years the American, French, German, Italian, and Russian societies have all revolted against an established political regime. In each case revolution was not conducted in a desire to bring about anarchy, but to bring a new order to society so everyone may move forward.

This question may be reframed as does one have a moral obligation to disobey any unjust laws? I believe this is so. History has demonstrated to us time and time again the power of tyranny. Adolf Hitler could not have committed the authorities he did if the citizens of his country had not allowed him to do so. There is a fine line between freedom and social order. As citizens we must question authority. One has an obligation to denounce injustice if every citizen is responsible for every act of the government.

Henry David Thoreau argues that the government's power arises from the majority because they are the strongest group, not because their viewpoint is correct. Thoreau states that an individual's first obligation is to do what they believe is right, not to follow the law by the majority. When a government is unjust a person has an obligation to refuse to follow the law and distance themselves from the government. He questions the effectiveness of reforming the government, contending that voting and petitioning have little effect. Thoreau contends that refusing to participate in an unjust government institutions is preferable to trying to change the government from within stating that one cannot see the government for what it is when one is working within it (McElroy, 2005).

Will education and modernization lead to more or less revolutions and overthrows of governments in Less Developed Countries?

I would have to believe that the more educated and technologically connected an oppressed society becomes the more likely they are to revolt against the forces that oppress them. For Instance, in 2011 inspired by the successful revolution in Tunisia, thousands of Egyptians began taking to the streets to protest poverty, rampant unemployment, government corruption, and the oppressive governance of President Hosni Mubarak (Kanalley, 2011). Key issues that sparked this civil unrest were a state riddled with corruption and economic problems that had long existed and were worsened in the wake of the 2008 global economic crash. These factors along with the lack of freedom of speech fueled the public's demand for the end of emergency law, freedom, justice, a responsive non-military government, and a say in the management of Egypt's resources.

The New York Times (2011) reported the uprising had come about with virtually no leadership. The protest intensified as angry young people used cell phones and social media to coordinate the first demonstrations. Media experts have disagreed to what extent social media played a part in the uprisings. While some contend networking tools such as Facebook and Twitter were instrumental in spurring people to the streets attributing the ability to upload videos of police brutality and post them on Facebook as a key reason the movement spread others believe social media created only thin networks and did not have the ability to compel people to engage in high-risk activism (Rathbone, 2011).