World history
Comparing and contrasting origins of English, Russian and French revolutions
Stating the revolutions inevitability, that is, why they opted to risk for revolutions
Why revolutions moved from moderate demands to extreme ones with governments that were much dictatorial than they started with.
English revolution is found to precede that of French as the later came as a continuation of the former. That is as English revolution took place during the seventeenth century, French revolution came a century after which is specifically eighteenth century. This was then followed by Russian revolution which occurred much later in 1971.
At first, English revolution originated from the situation whereby the reigning king who took over from Queen Elizabeth assumed a rather inexperienced form of ruling characterized by monarch supremacy, constrained religious matters and financial problems culminating to bankruptcy as well as continued indifference with the existing parliament.
This was just but the beginning as after his ruling encountered much rebellion and even war, his successors also followed a similar trend particularly that where they exaggerated their expenditure hence rendering the government bankrupt.
On the other hand, French revolution originated from a more or less similar situation experienced in English revolution whereby absolute monarchy reigned. It was therefore evident that for medieval rights to be infringed, the monarchy required to undergo destruction. This would mean that the outstanding nobility privileges relating to law had to undergo reform since they dominated the ruling which isolated those belonging to low and had no say in ruling.
As the nobles continued to flourish, peasants proceeded to get deeper in poverty. The intention and focus of the Louis XVI was to undertake a restructuring of the financial system of the region though the efforts were limited to having the nobles taxed despite the fact that it was considered an appropriate means of evading public bankruptcy. After changing one finance minister for the other with minimal success in getting the financial status back to normal functioning, Louis failed the public by leading it to bankruptcy.
What followed was tough suggestion on the manner in which the king would rule in order to mend the bankruptcy mistake but instead of hearing the merchant group out, he proceeded to fighting them back. This he did not manage as estate generals took over national assembly and had their way that gave low class people the first priority.
Russian revolution had no much difference from the other two French as well as English revolutions as it originated from indifference with the manner in which tsars ruled. This led to Tsar’s disposition as provincial government ruled for some time before being overthrown by Bolshevik which was more supportive of workers council.
It is clear that those who lived during the times when these revolutions were taking place, did all they could to see to it that they managed through the revolutions. For instance, the French had suffered for a long time under the ruling that favored the nobles and the opposition led by Napoleon would not stop until they had the reformed carried out in such a way that the peasants and low class were well represented and also occupied a significant position in the ruling undertakings which they surely did.
This did not come easily as the former king Louis together with his followers had to escape as they had no trust for newly formed national assembly which they regarded not to have any good intentions as pertaining to them. On the other hand, English revolution portrayed a level of inevitability whereby its operations went ahead even to executing James VI for his persistence in being a dictator while his actions were only worsening the social, economic as well as political situations by the day. Just as national assembly took control of ruling when they had fought against Louis; the parliament in English revolution took it upon itself to choose and be in control of the king as well and have a right to influence important decision making processes.
The inevitability of Russian Revolution which was actually characterized by tough war was directed to paving way for Soviet Union which was much better in terms of ruling as compared to Tsars. It is also clear that dictatorship continued to reign as revolution took the ground since there was much rebellion from the parties with unacceptable forms of ruling and it is only through this that revolution would be realized.
Why it is that all modern government are based on the political theories of either Locke, Rousseau as well Hobbes and how their ideas came to form foundations of modern contexts far removed from those who originally formed them.
An extensive survey of the three revolutions and the manner in which they took place has shown that they all followed already existing political theories. These theories include that by Locke which focuses on the situation where men have the right to live with freedom without having their moves monitored.
However, he agrees that nature state drives people into wanting to better their lives which they undertake through appointment of a sovereign that is expected to offer them impartial justice as well as security. This is done in order to help people to enjoy their liberty as they forego some rights while others are retained within social contract that binds the sovereign with citizens.
Locke proceeds to agree to it that the appointed sovereign and the agreement its makes with citizens is flexible such that the coming generations are free to make changes where they want by even choosing another sovereign that bets fits their wants. This is exactly the same foundation that the three revolutions’ operations are based on as they citizens try to remove the sovereign with unacceptable ruling and appoint a better one with their wants particularly those of middle and low class are met accordingly.
Hobbes is also found to give his ideas concerning nature’s state which he regards as being inapplicable in men’s world as they themselves are characterized by evil as well as selfish actions and beliefs. This occurs in situations whereby men strive to have their freedom preserved as they dominate others who are less powerful. The practice of domination does not end well as war becomes prevalent hence resulting to short, nasty as well as brutish kind of life.
Hobbes confirms that with the existence of nature’s state progress, justices and peaceful society is not existent requiring people to focus on central government through upholding social contract. He goes on to argue that when a sovereign is appointed, the minority are expected to adhere to the majority’s choice failure to which war may arise. In the case of the French revolution, it is the minority that is the noble who are found to support the king who inherits sovereignty. This is where war erupts as the majority composed of merchant and peasants’ community strives to overthrow the government and have their own in place.
Rousseau’s theory also has an upper hand in the French, English as well as Russian revolutions’ undertakings. Pack mentality is what Rousseau points out to be the cause of a belief that the choice of a particular group is appropriate for everybody. The resultant is that everyone is expected to follow the ruling of the group by force which is likened to dictatorship to the point of slavery, persecution, violence as well as oppression.
It is social contract that comes to people’s rescue as it supports everyone’s generous desires as well as aims to be a more lenient king of ruling otherwise known as democratic government. This is what the revolutions in questions were fighting for though the process to attaining this was more or less characterized by dictatorship practices, owing to the tough opposition social contract movements encountered.
