4.1. Introduction
The Nigerian-Biafra Revolution is one of the most recent revolutions that took place after the emergence of the theory of postmodernism and its dominance in a global society. Therefore, examining the case study critically would help in explaining how the Fichtean political thought, especially his defence of the French Revolution, can be helpful in the contemporary world. Does this philosophy align with the international framework for human rights that was declared after the end of the world wars leading to the emergence of postmodernism? Lessons learnt from the Nigerian Biafra Revolution will help in settling the paradoxes surrounding the considerable degree of incongruence between the Fichtean conceptualisation of a revolution and the contemporary socio-economic situations. Therefore, before discussing the case study, it is imperative to start with a postmodern meaning of a revolution and any other political concepts related to it this will lay a firm groundwork to exploring the main case study. Nonetheless, although the main focus of this chapter is the Nigerian-Biafra Revolution, the Russian Revolution will also be highlighted as a way of ensuring that a biased interpretation is evaded. The French Revolution will also be furthered, especially in establishing the difference between a revolution of the enlightenment era and the postmodern era. Towards the end, the specific lessons drawn from the Nigerian-Biafra Revolution will be highlighted in preparation to further explore the legality of a revolution, especially in the present times. Furthermore, before exploring the meaning and concepts of a revolution, it is important to distinguish modernism from postmodernism and modernity from postmodernity.
Thesis Writing Help
Looking for professional thesis help? Best Dissertation Writers deliver custom research, writing, and editing services. Get your thesis done perfectly—reach out to us today for expert support!
4.2. Revolution: Meaning and Concepts
The term revolution has been used in wider contexts: for example, social revolution, political revolution, economic revolution, technological revolution, and so on. Therefore, what is the fundamental meaning of a revolution? In the previous chapter, it was outlined that whereas Fichte defended the French Revolution terming it as “thinking” and “acting”, his philosophical Godfather Immanuel Kant rejected it arguing that it was not a “real revolution”. Their conceptual differences despite scholarly proximity indicate that the term “revolution” is highly contentious in the academic world this observation was also reiterated by scholar Isaac Kraminick who argued that “Revolutionaries…have usually devoted as much time and energy debating the nature of the revolution as they have in efforts to bring one about”[1]. Consequently, divergent revolutionary thoughts have emerged among political philosophers, even those who are thought to be closely scholarly related including Immanuel Kant and Fichte. In this chapter, the meaning and concepts of revolution will be considered from a Fichtean perspective while mitigating any radical views with the tenets of postmodernism as a pursuit towards understanding how a revolution can be brought about in the present day without infringing the international framework of human rights or the legitimacy of constitutionally protected governments.
4.2.1 Characteristic Features of Revolution
According to scholar Mario Coccia, a revolution is a “historical process that generates a rapid and structural change in society…[as] a result of human activity in society originated to satisfy specific needs and/or to cope with and adapt in the presence of environmental threats and changing contexts”[2]. This definition’s foundational tenets are in line with the idea that the French Revolution, which was strongly defended by Fichte, took place to promote happiness, freedom, and progress in the present world rather than the next[3]. Therefore, from both traditional and Fichtean perspectives, the purpose of a revolution is to bring instant resolution to a paralysing problem through a rapid and structural change in society. Before revealing the specific characteristics of a revolution, it is imperative to begin by exploring its positive and negative effects by drawing examples from the French Revolution.
According to Tiruneh, the main causes of social revolutions include state ineffectiveness, economic development, and regime type[4]. In ancient societies like Greece, revolutions were considered a normal way of life, especially when different types of regimes such as democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic alternate powers it is a usual way of assuming power from a different regime type[5]. Similarly, not all ancient political philosophers thought that revolutions were a permanent aspect of political life that bloodshed must happen from one time to another. Instead, some of them like Aristotle believed that the best solution to preventing a regular or frequent occurrence of revolutions is to combine the three types of regimes so that oligarchies, democrats, and monarchies will have an equal share of power in society hence, there will be no motivation to touch off a revolution[6]. In this case, a consensus on the definition of a revolution has been obtained: unlike Kant who termed the French Revolution not a real revolution (due to his subjectivist and dogmatist approaches to political philosophy), Fichte and other ancient philosophers like Aristotle believed that a revolution is any occurrence, mostly violent, that brings about rapid and structural change in society. For instance, the French Revolution brought about a rapid and structural political change in France, which entailed abandoning traditional ways by adopting the new ideas of the Enlightenment era. However, perhaps, according to Kant, a real revolution is the one that takes place with no bloodshed this is because, in the previous chapter, it was discovered that Kant was particularly against the violent eruption and bloodshed that took place during the French Revolution. Is it possible for a revolution to take place without involving bloodshed? According to Fichte [7], this is an impossibility because “thinking” coupled with “action” must involve bloodshed whatsoever for a revolution to take place Fichte dismissed Kant’s rejection of the French Revolution arguing that he only advocates for “thinking” without “action”, which is meaningless at the end of the day.
Although Aristotle advocated for the need to have an inclusive government that considers the views of monarchies, democrats and oligarchies, the result of the French Revolution was weakened monarchism by ending absolutism, which was turning the country into a tyrannical rule[8]. Fichte and other philosophers were initially in support of relativism, which is one of the reasons he supported the French Revolution. A historical look into the revolution reveals that it was motivated by the happenings of the 1789 storming of the Bastille Saint-Antoine however, its origin can be traced back to 1859 when the French sociologist called Alexis de Tocqueville reviewed the so-called “grievance books” whereby he discovered that people were tired of an absolutist monarchy. Instead, they required a newly established law through a “wholesome and systematic abolition of all the laws and all the current practices in the country”[9] this is a Jacobin point of view of the French Revolution. During the 1790s, Fichte was called an atheist for his heavy reliance on a relativist approach to political thought[10]. At this time, he was considered a Jacobin for his radical views against the state[11]. Due to the heavy rejection in society for he was referred to as an atheist teacher of philosophy, Fichte slowly converted into an absolutist, especially in his extension of the Kantian law of morality and his conceptualisation of God, the idea of practical reason and the state and society. Therefore, from a Fichtean point of view, their advocacy for the abolition of any government system associated with absolutist monarchism can be considered a democratic approach, which is rather radical in nature it strongly opposed the view of others (oligarchy and monarchy)[12]. Therefore, although the weakening of absolutist monarchism can be considered a positive effect on society, it can also be a disadvantage since it can yield power imbalance among the believers of the three different types of regimes thus resulting in violent eruptions when alternating power, which are generally harmful to a country’s economic and social growth. Overall, the observations made in this paragraph have confirmed that the first and foremost attribute of a revolution is the rapid and structural change in society for instance, the abolition of absolutist monarchism in France and the subsequent establishment of republicanism.
Moreover, in addition to the weakening of absolute monarchy in France, the revolution also resulted in the positive gain in the rights of the individual and economic equality. The rights of the individual were contained in the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen”[13]. Some of these rights were freedom of speech, land association, ownership and press[14]. By assuming that the French Revolution was legitimate as Fichte argued[15], then the main lesson drawn from it is that one of the characteristics of a revolution is to advance human rights to meet contemporary social and economic expectations. Indeed, when the above progress in human rights took place in France, economic equality was consequently boosted as evidenced by distribution of land ownership from the Nobility to the common public thus promoting socio-economic progress, as Roederer quotes,
“The basis of the social pact is property, the first condition is that everyone is maintained in the peaceful enjoyment of what belongs to him”[16].
which is one of the most prevalent desires of humanity. In that case, a revolution can take place to topple an ineffective government but, the main question is, what is an ineffective government? From the Fichtean perspective and the idea of human rights advancement, an ineffective government can, therefore, be defined as the one that “holds” the “progress” of the aspects mentioned above. Nonetheless, considering that revolutions can have enormous damage to society, especially if they occur frequently, as further elaborated below, then the “necessity” for a revolution is “very tight”. In other words, for a revolution to take place, there must be an underlying issue that needs total abolition of the current system for it to be resolved effectively.
On the other hand, the French Revolution resulted in emigration[17], the rise of nationalism[18] and decades of war. It was previously highlighted that Kant rejected the French Revolution on the ground that it involved decades of war. Between September 1793 and July 1794, more than 40,000 people were killed[19] this is devastating in the face of humanity whereby every individual is regarded as equal in the face of God. Likewise, during the upset, France’s nobility fled the nation to get away from death and they escaped with their riches and education, which brought about critical financial devastation. Finally, although nationalism may be considered a good thing generally, it has been associated with tragic events in history such as World War II. At the end of the French Revolution, France turned into a nationalist regime. Indeed, even most of the defendants of the revolution were nationalists for example, Fichte’s early works have been an honest critic of nationalist opinions[20]. Notably, immediately after the Rhineland French conquest, he stated how he left his native and was never coerced by guilt. Fichte’s aim then and later was multicultural and idealistic. In his Revelation, Marx’s prognostication of the “withering of the state”, he asserted that it aimed at its destruction[21]. The rationale of any governance is to make itself unnecessary. Fichte has always been in the belief that the (Theory of the State) which he authored before he a year before he died, implied that “traditional government would wither away”[22]. Nonetheless, the predicted moment has not yet succeeded. However, Fichte did have yet to explain in simple terms the process in which the withering of the state would transpire.
Overall, another characteristic of a social revolution is instantaneous economic destruction with intentions to improve its efficiency and effectiveness in the long term. The French revolution triggered bread expenses to rise in aggregation with decreasing wages itself there was a 25% fall in actual wages and an 88% rise in the price of bread[23]. The French Revolution of 1789 exemplifies how social revolutions often involve rapid economic destruction with the aim of long-term improvement. The revolutionaries swiftly dismantled the feudal economic system, abolishing aristocratic privileges and the tax exemptions of the nobility and clergy[24]. This immediate economic upheaval was dramatic. The confiscation and sale of Church lands, representing about 10% of French territory, radically altered property ownership. The abolition of guilds and trade restrictions aimed to create a free market economy. The issuance of assignats, a form of paper money backed by confiscated lands, initially stimulated the economy but later led to hyperinflation. Therefore, considering that the outcome of the French Revolution was highly socio-economically welcome, the Fichtean defence sounds more justifiable in this context than the Kantian rebuff. Thus, the issue of legitimacy forms the epicentre of the argumentation on the legality of a revolution against a government that represses its citizenry.
These actions caused significant short-term economic distress. Many aristocrats fled, taking their wealth and expertise. The Church’s role in providing social services collapsed. Rural areas experienced unrest and violence. However, the revolutionaries envisioned these changes as necessary for creating a more equitable and efficient economy. They aimed to break the economic stranglehold of the privileged classes and create opportunities for the bourgeoisie and peasantry. In the long term, these changes did contribute to the modernization of the French economy, though the process was turbulent and extended well beyond the revolutionary period. The abolition of feudal dues and the redistribution of land ultimately benefited many peasants, while the dismantling of internal trade barriers fostered economic integration[25]. Lack of Economic freedom was dangerous in associating with hunger in the absenteeism of elementary continuation was discoursed when pursuing clichéd 18th century weighs about state accountability and freedom of commerce. Arbitrate Republicans, endorsing the viability of comprehensive illustrative government friendly with the section of labor, dynamically safeguarded property rights as the foundation for different procedures of freedom and prosperity. Profound antimonarchists triggered the safety of the citizens as a rationalization for government interventions in situations where people are starved. According to Roederer[26], he used the principle of equality that had authoritatively suppressed Physiocracy’s outdated political schedule:
“The system of the economists should not occupy us for a moment, even though it was awarded the imposing title of Physiocracy, government of nature, the principles of natural order and essential political societies, the levelers will do it justice. This system will fall under their blows, because their principles of equality are excellent, it is the consequences they infer which are bad”[27].
Up to this point, the main observations concerning the characteristics of a revolution include legitimacy. A legal revolution is the one that takes place legitimately. However, the scope of legitimacy, considering this is a philosophical project, can be considered ambiguous. According to Immanuel Kant, for example, legitimacy is when the public collectively or democratically (a majority) agrees that a government is underperforming for consistently not meeting the progress expectations of the people as well as exhibiting suspicious moves that undermine the free will, happiness and pursuit for meaning in life for the whole or some group(s) within a country. In line with this Kantian view, Professor M. Maesschalck in Droits et creation sociale chez Fichte argued that “…we should speak of politics of reason which is moral. To embark on the path of change is to seek a rationality of politics capable of allowing humans to collectively realize their freedom”[28]. Therefore, this section will also focus on the democratic aspect of a revolution to determine whether rapid and instantaneous social change can take place in a given nation without necessarily entailing violence this will help provide a new perspective that is contrastingly anti-Fichtean (Fichte supported the idea that violence is part and parcel of any revolution, something that Kant strongly rejected arguing that a real revolution does not involve violence leading to bloodshed. Some people do not have to lose lives to bring about social change in a given country.
Complete chapter 4 is presented in the attached PDF file below
