Words Can Be Tricky Things

Words can be tricky things. They are the tools of thought, if the word is dull then the thought is dull, and if the thought is dull then confusion and misunderstanding sets in. In the world of politics, the dilemma of imperfect and dull words is rampant. Thus, perhaps one of the greatest needs of our time is simply good working definitions. More specifically, and for the purposes of this blog, words like “political violence” and “revolutions” can be particularly hard to define, especially in light of the messy situations in which these kinds of terms are applied to.  

             

            In David J. Samuels’s book, Comparative Politics, Dr. Samuels defines political violence as, “the use of force by states or non-state actors to achieve political goals.” (Samuels, 2012) Likewise, Dr. Samuels defines revolution as “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) Do these definitions work? More specifically, do these definitions accurately describe what is generally understood to be “political violence” or a “revolution”, or are these definitions too specific or too vague?

             

            A case in recent history that may point out some of the flaws in these definitions is the recent Egyptian revolution that began in January of 2011. The Egyptian revolution would be what I would consider as a “modern revolution”. Unlike Samuels’s definition, which implies militarized armed conflict between existing government and insurgents in which the outcome is primarily decided upon the battleground, the Egyptian revolution was fought and won mainly through civil resistance via labor strikes, marches, demonstrations, and civil disobedience. The Egyptian revolution was not, however, without conflict. At least 841 people were killed and over 6,000 were injured during brief skirmishes between protesters and security forces and acts of police aggression (DEEB, 2012). However, the Egyptian revolution did accomplish Samuels’s main distinction of a revolution in which “the insurgents subsequently [brought] about wholesale political change” (Samuels, 2012) in which they forced Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his government to yield power and a new more democratic government was organized.

             

            Does the Egyptian revolution count as a revolution? The question alone seems counter intuitive in that he world at large has considered and termed it already as a revolution. In the Egyptian revolution, force was used to achieve political goals, in other words, political violence did occur, and it resulted in a complete wholesale change in government, though perhaps not to the level expressed by Dr. Samuels.

Perhaps a softer definition of a revolution would be helpful. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines revolution as, “a fundamental change in political organization; especially: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed” (Merriam-Webster, 2012). Under this definition, the Egyptian revolution is a perfect example. Between these two definitions, the main point that comes into question is that of armed conflict.

Historically, revolutions have equated with armed conflict. However, it is critical to note that a fundamental change in society has been the almost complete monopolization of arms by government. Unlike the time of the American Revolution when the average man was just about as well equipped as a military man, today the average citizen in almost any country, including Egypt, have virtually no capacity to combat their standing government in terms of arms on the open battle ground.  This puts one, in terms of definitions, in a sticky place, for if one can allow, as the English language has continued to do so, terms to adapt to fit the world around us, or accepts Samuels’s definition in which world conditions are such that revolutions have become a virtual thing of the past or at best a near impossibility for most citizens in most countries in which some new term may need to be invented to describe modern overthrow of government.

   

Bibliography

DEEB, S. E. (2012, May 15). Egypt Revolution Death Toll: Arab Network for Human Rights Information Documents 841 Killed. Huffington Post. Retrieved November 9, 2012, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/egypt-revolution-death-toll-arab-network-human-rights_n_1519393.html

Merriam-Webster. (2012). Revolution. Retrieved from Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revolution

Samuels, D. J. (2012). Comparative Politics. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.