Blog 9

Blog 9

                For this analysis, I used the measure of per capita PPP GDP from the World Development Indicators database as the measurement for economic performance, as well as the World Bank’s “Governance Matters” data on Corruption (specifically, the Control of Corruption data). The PPP (purchasing power parity) of the GDP per capita is a good measurement of economic power. It balances out wealth disparities that are present between very rich and very poor people in the same country, and measures how much money a specific product would cost in different countries, correcting for foreign exchange rates (World Development Indicators). The Control of Corruption statistics is defined by the World Bank as “perceptions of the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain.” The score is given on a scale from -2.5 (weak governance) to 2.5 (strong), and is an estimated score. I chose this over other data points because I believe that it better shows the rate of corruption inside the country itself, instead of comparative measurements between countries (Governance Matters). The data for both was taken from 2010, so that the data would be recent but complete. I also removed countries from the sample for which data was not available in both categories (e.g. Greenland, North Korea, etc.).

                As you can see in the graph below, there is a loose correlation between economic development and corruption, and as economic development increases, there is a slight increase in good governance. The graph does not have very tight fit, and several outliers (such as those countries with good governance but weak economic performance) might need explanation.

                My explanation is that there is a causal relationship between the two variables. This is because people who have little chance for honest economic progress  because of a poor national economy will turn to more shady avenues of profit-making, while those in more developed, richer countries have viable opportunities to enrich themselves without harming others. Also, in richer countries, the police force is stronger, which could lead to fewer opportunities for corrupt actions.

REFERENCES

World Bank. Governance Matters website. http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp           (accessed November 19, 2012).

World Bank. World Development Indicators. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-     development-indicators/ (accessed November 19, 2012). 

Roy Copans

                The country that I chose to study the causes and effects of political violence in is South Africa. The specific events of political violence that I will explore are the conflicts between the African National Congress (ANC) and the apartheid government in the final years of apartheid, the 1980s and early 1990s. The violent events that took place are an example of a revolution, and in my paper I will attempt to correctly categorize this instance of political violence and see how well the textbook’s definitions actually work.

                Ever since 1948 when the National Party came into power, the country of South Africa was ruled by a racially segregated “apartheid” government. Under apartheid, white and black people were separated, legally bound to be segregated in areas such as education, medical care, public services, the neighborhoods they lived in, recreational activities, etc.[i] Under apartheid, blacks were heavily repressed, deprived of their citizenship and not allowed to vote. This led to a black revolution, as they rebelled, protested, and sought to come into power to overcome the apartheid government that held them down. According to the UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset, the major conflicts between ANC (black political party) and the country of South Africa began in 1981 and carried on throughout the eighties into the early nineties until apartheid was finally abolished[ii].

                The textbook’s definition of a revolution is that it is an “armed conflict within a sovereign state between insurgents and the state, in which (1) both the insurgents and the state claim the allegiance of a significant proportion of the population; (2) authority over the state is forcibly transferred from the state to the insurgents, and (3) the insurgents subsequently bring about wholesale political change.”[iii] I feel that this definition almost perfectly describes the type of revolution that took place in South Africa. The only part of the definition that wavers from the conflict between the insurgents (ANC) and state (National Party apartheid government) is when it is defined as an “armed” conflict. Much of what the ANC and black insurgents in townships did was not armed, but was in small-scale forms of riots, boycotts, bombings, and beatings, but not necessarily armed militant-style attacks[iv]. Occasionally armed attacks would occur, but as a whole the revolution would not be thought of as an armed conflict. However, the rest of the definition of a revolution is spot on, as the ANC did claim the allegiance of a huge proportion of the country’s population (nearly all black South Africans), and authority over the state was transferred, bringing about wholesale political change, as the ANC eventually won the right to vote for blacks and Nelson Mandela (ANC) won the 1994 presidential elections, bringing civil rights to black South Africans and abolishing the apartheid government and its racist policies. Because of the revolution, the foundations for a new democratic government in South Africa were laid.

In attempting to categorize the causes behind the revolution that took place in South Africa, I’ve felt that the main causes and dimensions of the revolution are motivation, the identity of the actors, and the goal. The motivation and goals go hand in hand, as the blacks were motivated by the repression that bound them to rise up and bring about change in the country. The ultimate goal was obviously to gain rights for their people, and the identity of the actors was an important cause because it was their identity as repressed black South Africans that united them.

Later on in the chapter, the book states that “revolutions are a subtype of civil war in which the winning side not only takes control of the state but implements radical change, such as bringing previously excluded groups of people into power.”[v]  To me, this solidifies the categorization of the political violence of the ANC in South Africa as a successful revolution.

---

[i] Wikipedia: Apartheid in South Africa (2012). Apartheid.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_in_South_Africa#Final_years_of_apartheid>

[ii] Department of Peace and Conflict Research (2012). UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset.

<http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/datasets/ucdp_prio_armed_conflict_dataset/>

[iii] Samuels, David J. Comparative Politics. (pg. 268-269). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Pearson Education. 2013.

[iv] Wikipedia: Apartheid in South Africa (2012). Final Years of Apartheid.

 < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_in_South_Africa#Final_years_of_apartheid>

[v] Samuels, David J. Comparative Politics. (pg. 273). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Pearson Education. 2013.

The Glorious Revolution by Spencer Marks

The Glorious Revolution of 1688, in Britain, is often called “The Bloodless Revolution.” While this is not technically true, as Royalist forces clashed with Dutch and parliamentary forces at the Battle of Broad Street¹, it is one of the least violent revolutions in history. However, it is unclear if this was purely a revolution, or even a revolution at all.

The conflict leading to this was between King James II of England and Parliament. He leaned catholic, with a tendency to ally with France, while Parliament was strongly protestant and preferred Holland. The king also had little concern for constitutional restraints placed on him, though he was often forced to defer to Parliament, particularly in fiscal matters. Eventually, he began packing Parliament with his supporters and appointing Catholics to army leadership positions. When that happened, Parliament united and asked William of Orange, military leader in Holland and wife of Mary, a legitimate British heir, to come depose their king.

William did this, landing in England with Dutch troops. He was there joined by Protestant English who opposed the king. After one small clash at Reading, the Battle of Broad Street, James abdicated the throne and fled from England. The Glorious Revolution was complete.

The reason this is hard to classify as a revolution is that usually, revolutions are primarily internal affairs. In this case, there were few English troops that actually fought, and when it was all over, the foreigner became the new king. If one looks at it from the perspective of James, the so-called “Glorious Revolution” was just a foreign invasion by an unfriendly power, aided by treasonous insurrectionists within his own country. By this, it certainly seems that the events of 1688 were actually an inter-state conflict.

I would argue otherwise, however, because of the events which occurred afterward. When William took the throne, he had to give considerable considerations to Parliament. This was the true birth of the Constitutional Monarchy. There were considerable restraints on royal power, and the groundwork was laid for Britain to become the powerful democracy that it is today. Since the definition of revolution is that it’s a popular movement that brings lasting and meaningful change to the system of government, I think that this is a great example. I also think that it proves that political violence can achieve its goals with only the threat of violence, that mass amounts of blood don’t need to be shed, which is an encouraging thought.

1.      "Berkshire History: The Battle of Broad Street." Berkshire History: The Battle of Broad Street. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2012. <http://www.berkshirehistory.com/articles/reading_broadst.html>.

The Algerian Revolution - Overthrowing the Government, but Controlling Only a Part

            The Algerian revolution was in many ways a perfect example of a revolution. However, the revolution does highlight the weaknesses inherent in the definition of a revolution given by David A. Samuels. Samuels defines a revolution as “armed conflict within a sovereign state between insurgents and the state,” and gives three criteria that distinguish revolutions in particular: both the insurgents and state claim the allegiance of the majority of the people; authority over the state is forcibly taken by the insurgents from the state; and the wholesale change that the insurgents bring about after taking control of the country or territory (2013). The Algerian Revolution, while it qualified as a revolution in these three ways, could also be classified as something else because of the unique nature of the war and the weakness of Samuel’s definition.

            The revolution in Algeria fulfills all three qualifications above. For years Algeria had been considered as part of France. It was divided into three départements of France (the equivalent of a county in the United States), and encouragement from the French government during the first half of the twentieth century encouraged the settlement of hundreds of native French families in Algeria (Shepard 2006). However, Algerian nationalism grew quickly in the years following World War Two, and the Algerian revolution began with a revolt by the Front de Libération Nationale (the National Liberation Front, or FLN) in 1954. Fighting, including guerrilla warfare and torture, last for several years until President de Gaulle of France ended the war and gave Algeria its independence. As a result of the war, the Fourth Republic of France was overthrown by the French, and a new constitution was written (McCormack 2007).

            The war in Algeria fulfills the three criteria of a revolution. Both the French government and the Algerian rebels claimed authority and support from the population, which after several decades was somewhat mixed ethnically and culturally. After years of fighting, the control of the country was taken by the insurgents, who instated wholesale change in the form of an Islamic government (Shepard 2006).

            Despite this, there may be some who object to the classification of a revolution on the grounds that the Algerian freedom fighters did not overthrow the entire country, but simply the Algerian territory. However, it should be noted that the actions of the Algerians resulted in the collapse of the French state, which I believe classifies it as a revolution. The weakness of the definition is obvious because it does not allow for instances like Algeria when a revolution overthrows an entire country but where insurgents only control part of the country.

For these reasons, in relation to the Algerian revolution, the definition of revolution might profit from being slightly altered to include independence movements which result in the widespread collapse of a government, even if the insurgents do not control the entire former country.  

In conclusion, the definition that David J. Samuels gives for a revolution fits the Algerian war fairly well. While it does have a few weaknesses, the definition adequately fits the Algerian revolution.

           

REFERENCES

McCormack, Jo. 2007. Collective memory: France and the Algerian War. Lanham, Maryland:       Lexington Books.

Samuels, David J. 2013. Comparative Politics. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Pearson Education.

Shepard, Todd. 2006. The invention of decolonization: The Algerian War and the remaking of        France. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

The French Revolution: An Examination of the Semantics of Political Violence

 

 The French Revolution: An Examination of the Semantics of Political Violence

                When does violence become political? How do we know when it crosses the line between domestic violence to political violence? What are the differences between terrorism and interstate conflicts, or between revolutions and civil wars? While some clarity to these and similar questions has come in recent decades, there still remains a considerable amount of debate and disagreement about what constitutes political violence and how it should be classified. In an attempt to cut through the confusion, some scholars have offered their own definitions of political violence (Samuels 2012, 258-282). As can be expected, these definitions have been greeted with varying levels of acceptance. This blog will take one instance of political violence, categorize it according to generally accepted definitions of political violence, and then check to see if that definition reflects the reality of the event in focus.

                 To illustrate how difficult it can be to categorize political violence, I will use a famous example–the French “Revolution.” According to Samuels, a revolution is an “armed conflict within a sovereign state between insurgents and the state, in which both the insurgents and the state claim the allegiance of a significant proportion of the population; authority over the state is forcibly transferred from the state to the insurgents, and the insurgents subsequently bring about wholesale political change” (Samuels 2012, 269). This is quite a wordy definition, but basically it says that it only counts as a revolution if both of the sides that are fighting were on the same side to begin with, both sides enjoy popular support, and the side that challenge the existing government win and make big changes once they take over. With these stipulations, does the uprising of the French bourgeoisie in the late 1700s qualify as a revolution?

                As is generally the case in questions of political science, the answer is multidimensional and tricky. We will start with where the definition works well. The French Revolution was certainly an armed and bloody conflict–conservative estimates suggest that over 40,000 people lost their lives during the Robespierre’s reign of terror alone (Gogh 1998, 77). It was also clearly an example of the insurgents fighting against the state, with the bourgeoisie (peasants) attacking the proletariats (the aristocrats). Both groups of people were initially subject to the authority of the state of France embodied in King Louis XVI. Also, the authority was eventually transferred from the king (and the aristocracy in general) to people as a whole, and France underwent wholesale change from a Monarchy to a Republic (Arnold 2009, 15-18). In those ways, Samuel’s definition for a revolution work very well in this case.

                Where the definition does not match up as well in this specific comparison is the idea that in order to be a revolution, both sides must enjoy widespread popular support. The French Revolution had many aspects, but roughly numerically balanced sides opposing each other was not one of them. The peasants outnumbered the aristocrats by an overwhelming majority, and they enjoyed much higher levels of overall support than did the proletariat. This fact puts into question the validity of Samuels’ definition.  While much of his definition of a revolution falls in line perfectly with what is observed in the French Revolution, there is one aspect that seems to conflict with the case study in question. Should it still count as a revolution?

I argue that that while the French Revolution may not match every aspect of a paragraph–long definition, it follows closely enough that I feel comfortable in classifying it as a revolution. Not all aspects of a definition are created equal, and the most important parts of a revolution (an armed conflict within state boundaries that the insurgents win) are present in this case.       

REFERENCES

Arnold, James R. 2009. The aftermath of the French Revolution. Minneapolis, MN: Twenty-first Century Books.

Gough, Hugh (1998). The Terror in the French Revolution. p. 77.

Samuels, David J. 2013. Comparative politics. New York, NY: Pearson.

In This the Eighth Blog of November

Emily Bashaw

Blog Post #8

            Russia: a country known worldwide for its near constant inner turmoil over the past couple hundred years. From tsars to communist dictators to a near free democracy, Russia has had its fair share of civil wars and revolutions to overthrow the government of the time. Perhaps one of the most prominent of Russian wars is known as the “Russian Revolution,” a war that overthrew tsars once and for all.

            The Russian Revolution took place in 1917. It was a series of wars that led to the eventual removal of the Tsarist Autocracy and the installation of the communist Soviet Union at the head of the Russian government. Perhaps the most important war of the revolution was known as the Bolshevik Revolution. In November of 1917, power was shared between a weak provisional government and the Petrograd Soviet (Reed). Led by Vladimir Lenin and his new Marxist ideals, the Bolshevik party overthrew the extremely weak provisional government through a near bloodless coup d’état. Immediately what was known as the White Army fought the Bolshevik Red Army in a series of battles, but the Bolsheviks had won and relative peace was restored (Riasanovsky). Only this time, it was under the communist Lenin dictatorship instead of the tsars that had ruled before.

            According to Samuels’ Comparative Politics, the definition of a revolution is, “armed conflict within a sovereign state between insurgents and the state, in which both the insurgents and the state claim an allegiance of the significant proportion of the population; authority over the state is forcibly transferred from the state to the insurgents,” (Samuels 269). In other words, a revolution is a civil war in which the rebel side succeeds in overthrowing the current government despite both sides having a great deal of support from the population.

A sovereign state is one that is completely autonomous and is not ruled by any outside force – Russia fits the bill. In this case, the insurgents are the Bolshevik party led by Lenin and the state is what is left from the weak tsarist government of old. Both sides have numerous people supporting them. The “white” side has millions of people and the number of supporters for the “red” side is clear with the amount of revolutions and protests leading up to this final war (“History”). The tsarist government still insisted claim over the Russian government, but the Bolsheviks with their Marxist ideas were led by Lenin to overthrow the government and claim rightful authority over the state (Reed). This was only achieved through the shedding of thousands of lives on both sides of the war until the insurgents finally came out on top victorious.

This Bolshevik/Russian Revolution is a “by the book” revolution. All components of Samuels’ definition are found in the revolution. There is a clear, powerful insurgent and state side. Both the state and the insurgents claimed the same government to be rightfully theirs and after numerous battles and the loss of thousands of lives, the insurgents finally rose victorious and completely overthrew the tsar system of government that had ruled the Russian land for hundreds of years. In this instance, the definition is perfect and does not be to be changed at all.

Work Cited

Reed, John. Ten Days that Shook the World. New York: Boni & Liveright, 1922. Web.

Riasanovsky, Nichlas V., Mark D. Steinberg. A History of Russia, 7th Edition, University Press, 2005.

"Russian Revolution." History. History. Web. 9 Nov 2012.

Samuels, David J. Comparative Politics. 1st Ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2012. 123-24. Print.

Blog 8

J.C. Eastwood

Prof. Hawkins

PL SC 150

8 November 2012

Blog 8: Categorizing Political Violence

            “Political violence is defined as the use of force by states or non-state actors to achieve political goals” (Samuels 258).  While it may seem easy to define political violence, the categorization of different acts of political violence is a much different matter and is often argued.  In my example for today, we will be analyzing the ongoing conflict in Turkey between the Turkish national government and the various Kurdish insurgent groups (PKK).

            In Turkey, the Kurds represent a minority of the population and live primarily in the nation’s southeastern edge and have had a centuries-long tradition of uprisings against the Turkish governments.  The current conflict has been raging since 1978 and has reportedly claimed the lives of 6,653 on the Turkish side and 18,000 on the rebel side (Wikipedia).  This has been a long, tough war in a region of the world that has seen much conflict in recent decades and has caused the displacement of an estimated 3 million civilians from that region. 

            There are many different categories of political violence, ranging from interstate warfare to revolution, but this conflict in Turkey seems to match the definition of civil war the closest.  According to the textbook Comparative Politics by David J. Samuels, a civil war is categorized as armed conflict between the state and an opposing party within a nation.  Also, according to Samuels, civil wars are very prolonged and have to accumulate a certain number of deaths (approximately 1,000). 

            This Turkish conflict certainly seems to fit that description well with this 34 year old conflict taking the lives of well over 1,000 people over the course of it’s violent timeline.  What are the reasons for civil wars such as this and why are some nations more susceptible to civil wars within their borders?  While there are many reasons given in the book, what seems to be the case for Turkey is cultural grievances, geography, and individual psychology.  The Kurds have, for centuries now, been trying to set up their own, independent nation known as “Kurdistan” in an area that covers parts of Turkey, Syria, and Iraq.  To add insult to injury, Turkey has largely looked down upon the Kurds and not given them equal rights in their nation with its other citizens.  Because of these factors, the Kurds feel discriminated against and have a strong resentment for the Turkish national government.  Also, their geography sets them apart because of their remoteness and distance from the main centers of population in Turkey.

            Others may call this a revolution or interstate conflict because of its goals and outside participation and involvement, but it is neither of these things for a few reasons.  For one, revolutions, according to Samuels, have to end in change of government.  Should the PKK be successful and actually depose of the Turkish government and take charge, this may become true.  However, the current aim of the PKK is to secede, not take over.  Also, this conflict would not become an interstate conflict because the definition for civil wars allows for outside influence.

            All in all, the conflict in Turkey can be classified as a civil war and the definitions given to us, both in class and in Comparative Politics hold true in this instance.

Works Cited

·      "Kurdish–Turkish Conflict." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Sept. 2012. Web. 09 Nov. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish–Turkish_conflict>.

·      Samuels, David J. "Political Violence." Comparative Politics. NYC: Electronic Services, n.d. 257-84. Print.

Blog 8: Categorizing Political Violence

            The Guatemalan Civil War was a long and complex conflict that took place between the government of Guatemala and leftist rebels between 1960 and 1996. While it is generally classified as a Civil War, the conflict contains elements of a number of other types of political violence.

            To understand the complexities of the prolonged violence in Guatemala, we must first know the historical context of the conflict. In the 1940’s, the “October Revolutionaries” seized control of the Guatemalan government from the dictatorship of General Jorge Ubico^[1]. The new government instituted a number of liberal economic policies. The U.S. State Department and the United Fruit Company (an American corporation and major landowner in Guatemala) felt threatened by what they believed was a communist revolt, and responded by using the CIA to launch Operation PBSUCCESS^[2]. With the support of the CIA, Guatemalan Army Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas initiated a successful coup d'état in 1954.

            The new government banned left-wing political parties and labor unions, and dissolved many of the liberal economic policies and democratic reforms. This disenfranchised and radicalized many of the leftist and poor Guatemalans. The foundation for decades of violence was established. The political conflicts were catalyzed by rampant racism against the indigenous peoples, foreign support and weaponry from governments like the United States and Cuba, and socio-economic unrest among the poverty-stricken peasants.

            The textbook defines civil war as an “armed combat within the boundaries of a sovereign state between parties that are subject to common authority at the state of hostilities.”^[3] This definition does apply to the political violence that occurred in Guatemala, however this simplification does not adequately describe the complexities of the conflict.

The Guatemalan Civil War took place in the unfortunate international context of the Cold War. Although Guatemala is often not considered to be a major player in this war, the international battle over communism turned Guatemala into a battlefield for a proxy war between states like the United States and Cuba. With arms and training from the CIA, the new right-wing government in Guatemala was able to successfully stave off a number of attempted coups from leftist revolutionaries while also initiating an atrocious campaign of human rights violations. The United States used its opposition to communism as an excuse to continue their support of the right-wing dictatorship throughout the war, while remaining willfully ignorant of the violence towards civilians^[4]. This in addition to Cuban support for leftist Guerillas establishes elements of indirect interstate warfare, due to the competing foreign interests in Guatemala’s governance.

The Guatemalan army leadership used the ongoing political conflicts as an excuse to act on their racial hatred towards the indigenous Mayan peoples. Further enabled by CIA weaponry and training, 200,000 Guatemalans were killed. Much of this destruction was “directed systematically against groups of the Mayan population, within which can be mentioned the elimination of leaders and criminal acts against minors who could not possibly have been military targets”^[5] and has thus been rightly classified as genocide.

            The complexities of the Guatemalan Civil War make it fascinating to study, but very difficult to classify. What began as a revolutionary coup d'état became a springboard for a prolonged civil war, during which international actors sought to establish their own political leverage, and the domestic government used the conflict as a cover for initiating racially motivated genocide. Simply classifying the conflict as a civil war does not account for the diverse motives of the belligerents: local revolutionaries seeking power, the US and Cuba attempting to establish geopolitical leverage, peasants trying to overcome poverty, the United Fruit Company pursuing economic interests, and the Guatemalan government acting on racial hatred and prejudice. Clearly the types of political violence that occurred within this “civil war” are numerous.

Blog 8

Blog 8

                Political violence represents dissatisfaction with the current political system and often results in the loss of life and resources. This is due to the nature of the definition of political violence, which includes the use of force by states or non-state actors to achieve political goals (Hawkins). A revolution is a specific type of political violence that is defined as “a civil war in which one party is the state, the insurgents win, the insurgents have a lot of popular support, and the insurgents implement ‘wholesale political change’” (Hawkins). The French Revolution fits the definition of political violence with the number of deaths that resulted from it, but it also more specifically fits the definition of a revolution as its title suggests.

                The state in the case of the French Revolution was the absolute monarchy under King Louis XVI. The insurgents were the people, the bourgeoisie, who were motivated by the financial crisis of the time. The book would describe this as a result of individual psychology with varying motivations including poverty and the need to virtuously defy a bad regime. The insurgents had popular support as shown by the storming of the Bastille in 1789. The book also mentions that a revolution requires the transfer of power from the state to the insurgents (Samuels). Much power was transferred to the insurgents with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, the abolition of feudalism, and the introduction of equality and the right to resist (Encyclopedia). A further symbol of the transfer of power was the formal execution of King Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette for treason.

                The real trick to this definition comes with the idea of “wholesale change”. In this definition, wholesale refers to large scale change. This holds true with the example of the French Revolution. At first they formed the National Constituent Assembly, which tried to share power between the king and the assembly. Their biggest change was making over half the male population eligible to vote and participate in the political process. In 1792 the National Convention abolished the monarchy and established a republic (Encyclopedia). This dispersed in 1795 and was replaced by the Directory. Conflict and change in the government would continue till Bonaparte abolished the Directory and became the leader of France. This change from a monarchy, to a republic, and then to an empire qualifies as large scale political change.

                The French Revolution is a good example of the definition of a revolution because of its violent and drastic change of politics. One benefit to this definition could be clarifying how long the political change needs to last to significantly count as a revolution. In the example of France, their political system changed many times, but we don’t often refer to each change as its own revolution. Instead, we clump them all together because it’s the final outcome that we care about. When a revolution ends is tricky to define, but I think it could be valuable to the definition as well because it clarifies what the outcome is. I think a revolution concludes when there is peace and violence is no longer prevalently used to reach political goals.

                The French Revolution is a revolution because power shifted from the state to the insurgents and created wholesale political change. This term actually clumps several of what could be thought as revolutions together because a revolution ends when relative peace and stability returns. The outcome of the revolution is what matters and is critical to the definition.

Works Cited:

Samuels, David J. Comparative Politics. New York: Cambridge Press, 2012.

Hawkins, Kirk. “Class Lecture”, Plsci 150. BYU 11/5

"French Revolution (1787-99)." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2012. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/219315/French-Revolution>.