Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- The historicity of the question
- The historicity of the answers
- 5 Practising history and social science on ‘realist’ assumptions
- 6 From democracy to representation: an interpretation of a Ghanaian election
- 7 ‘Hoc signo victor eris’: representation, allegiance and obligation in the politics of Ghana and Sri Lanka
- 8 Democracy unretrieved, or the political theory of Professor Macpherson
- 9 The success and failure of modern revolutions
- Conclusion
- Notes
- Index
9 - The success and failure of modern revolutions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 August 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- The historicity of the question
- The historicity of the answers
- 5 Practising history and social science on ‘realist’ assumptions
- 6 From democracy to representation: an interpretation of a Ghanaian election
- 7 ‘Hoc signo victor eris’: representation, allegiance and obligation in the politics of Ghana and Sri Lanka
- 8 Democracy unretrieved, or the political theory of Professor Macpherson
- 9 The success and failure of modern revolutions
- Conclusion
- Notes
- Index
Summary
Success for whom? Failure of what?
Ever since there have been polities, there have been political upheavals. As soon as systematic reflection about politics began in the Western world, it was recognised that political upheavals could mean not merely an alteration in the ruling personnel of a particular polity but also a change in the form of its political regime. The core of modern ideas of revolution remains the conception of transforming political regimes by means of or as a result of political upheaval. The main difference between ancient and modern ideas of the connection between political upheaval and regime transformation lies in the directional character of modern conceptions of regime transformation. Such ancient theories of regime transformation as were directional in character at all were explicitly cyclical. Modern analysis of regime transformation need not accept a directional view of historical process; but if it accepts any view of historical process at all it can hardly, except at the most abstract level, suppose its direction to be circular. Elites may circulate, individual rulers or groups of rulers may come and go; but regimes themselves can hardly now be supposed to follow a cyclical path. Modern revolutionaries are historical actors who aspire to transform political regimes in an intended direction by promoting political upheaval. The promotion of political upheaval is a regrettable necessity for (or an invigorating prelude to) regime transformation.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Political Obligation in its Historical ContextEssays in Political Theory, pp. 217 - 240Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1980
- 1
- Cited by