Chapter Six: General Conclusion and Recommendations

6.1. Introduction

This project has reviewed many scholarly documents such as books, journal articles, periodicals, Encyclopaedias, legal reports, former charters and declarations, past theses and dissertations, seminar papers and professional conference papers to provide a current discussion on the right of revolution against an unjust government that oppresses its people. Mixed reactions have been observed from various scholars and declarations and provisions of the documents mentioned above regarding this topic domain. I have blended these views into a consolidated argument through the means of incorporating Fichtean political philosophy in their interpretation and practical application.

The discussion began with a comprehensive review of human rights. Before providing the general concept of human rights, their historical roots, especially from the Middle Ages through the twentieth century were provided, with a particular emphasis on the Enlightenment era of the eighteenth century – this is because most philosophers who made human rights explicit and their eventual adoption by many countries worldwide originated during this era. The Enlightenment era served an important role in the political thought of human rights. Afterwards, the principles of human rights were discussed as well as the historical overview of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 (UDHR). Also, I provided a discussion on the framework of human rights in the context of international law and finally placed the argument on the setting of modern human governance.

Also, as highlighted above, the mixed reactions from various scholars regarding the right of revolution were consolidated into a single argument through the means of including Fichtean political philosophy perspectives into the mainstream discussion. Therefore, this project also critically reviewed the Fichtean political philosophy to lay the groundwork in forming a solid argument for the current topic domain. Particularly, the Fichtean political philosophy was historicized by examining the political situation under which Fichte philosophised. Then, the discussion headed towards critically evaluating how Fichte philosophised about the outlook of state and society in addition to many political philosophies that he published as a scholar. The prominent one was his doctrine of scientific knowledge, which provides perspectives into how perceived humanity, as well as which natural rights that humans deserve and what the government can do about them. To determine how his political philosophy can be applied in the real world today, we also investigated the standpoints he took while defending the French Revolution. Finally, to update his philosophy, it was critiqued using the theory of postmodernism due to its association with contemporariness. The primary aim was to determine if his political philosophy can fit the current world political problems and amenable to philosophical reflection.

Based on the findings of the evaluation of the Fichtean political philosophy and its critique, I evaluated the legal justifiability of major revolutions in history namely the English Revolution (1640), the French Revolution (1789-1799) and the Russian Revolution (1917-1923). The primary aim of these presentations was to determine any shift in political thought as it might be evidenced in various insurgencies and uprisings throughout history. Finally, I presented the main case study of this project, the Nigerian-Biafran Revolution (1967-1970). Various observations were made in regards to these four historical events, which led to the eventual comparison of the international law and the Fichtean perspective in justifying the legality of the right of revolution. Many observations emerged within the scope of the current study, which can help arrive at crucial conclusions regarding if it is legally right to revolt against an unjust government that oppresses its people. This chapter will present these conclusions, provide their theoretical and practical implications, make recommendations for future research based on the findings and limitations of the current study.

6.2. Conclusions

First and foremost, the findings of this project have revealed that it is legally right to revolt against an unjust government. This justification was based both on the perspectives of Fichte’s political philosophy and the international human rights framework as encompassed in international law. People have a legal right to reject a government that oppresses them by using the rule of law to undermine their birth or natural rights like freedom of speech, liberty, equality, and so on. Fichte argued that natural human rights are inalienable, and even the government or the state lacks authority to manipulate them whatsoever. Also, the principles of international law revealed that the role of the government is to protect these rights using the rule of law. Therefore, a government that uses the same rule of law to undermine them is considered oppressive. However, it is worth noting that there is a big difference between moral law and rule of law, especially based on the Fichtean perspective. With reference to the explanations by Fichte, legal law cannot be derived from moral law because moral law does not depend on the voluntary establishment of a reciprocal sphere of influence. Therefore, the metaphysical basis of the concept of law involves proposing the idea of a mutually self-limiting community, which is essential for determining the applicability of law to consciousness[1].

From the above excerpt, it is evident that “a people” shall define an oppressive government based on the rule of law rather than the moral law. This is because this is the only way they can achieve evidential collectivity to bargain for their freedom. In other words, there is a possibility that people have different conceptions of the moral law, which can lead to increased complexities towards achieving their collectivity in bargaining. Therefore, an oppressive government is the one that violates established rule of law such as constitutionality to gratify individual needs of the few while leaving the majority suffering without considering the tenets of the public good.

Fichte then argued that it is the fundamental responsibility of the people to use “every tone” to remind the government whenever it applies the rule of law unjustifiably, leading to the undermining of natural human rights. However, unlike Fichte who sounded politically radical in his philosophical declarations, the international law provides that people should exploit all peaceful means to seek just peace within their countries, and only use revolt as a last resort. Particularly, when peaceful means of resolving a conflict between the people and government fails, it indicates that the oppressive actions of that government are intentional or deliberate. If that is the case, then such a government is illegitimate since it does not serve the common good to promote individual freedoms of its people. Therefore, people can claim their natural rights through the use of force, as it was in the case of the French Revolution. However, their arguments on the legitimacy of the French Revolution shed more light into the legality of a revolution as it will be highlighted further in this sub-section.

Moreover, the Fichtean perspective would have supported the Biafran case because his political philosophy indicates that self-determination and political independence are inalienable human rights. Therefore, if the Federal Government of Nigeria was truly oppressing the Igbos and associated minority tribes, then the indigenous people of Biafra had a natural right to seek their freedom using revolution as their last resort. It is worth noting that Fichte implied that practical reason should be the guiding principle for the determination of whether to go for a revolution or not. He argued that the primary reason humanity exists is life and that that life must be dignified and respected by everyone, including the government or state. When the Igbo people expressed their concerns of discrimination to the Federal Government of Nigeria through their attempted military coup of 1966, the Nigerian army, under the control of the government, killed more than 80,000 Igbo people and other associated minority tribes residing in the Northern Region through a counter-coup. It is worth remarking that a majority of these people were civilians, including mothers and children. Thus, the government infringed the natural right of life and individual freedom, some of the aspects of natural human rights that Fichte defended much in his philosophical distributions, such as Foundations of Natural Rights. In that case, based on the Fichtean perspective of practical reason, it would have been extremely challenging for the Easterners to continue co-existing with the Northerners under the same government. The government should not have discriminated the Igbo people in oil revenue sharing. Even if it was only perceptible and not actual, the government, through the rule of law, should have taken responsible steps to change this perception, instead of killing innocent civilians, including women and children.

Complete chapter 6 is presented in the attached file

---