The paradox of revolution
An expanded article from The Geoffrey Letter: August 11, 2024
My historical thriller, A Fado for the River, a story of political intrigue and moral ambiguity has a subtext that reveals the paradox of revolution and the cost of freedom.
The personal story of one man’s search for a lover he met in Mozambique during the Carnation Revolution is underpinned on a thematic and abstracted level by an examination of the “Revolutionary’s Dilemma”.
It is often the case that those who win their struggle against a repressive regime are often worse at governing than the oppressive government they overthrew. Those who fought for self-determination find themselves in power, fighting bureaucracy while effective governance seems unobtainable. This is usually due to a lack of skills in policy-making, diplomacy, and economic management. In addition, revolutionaries may have difficulty adapting their ideological views to the practical realities of governance. Their ideological rigidity and lack of experience lead to the breakdown of government and institutions.
What about the people who have freed themselves from oppression?
They have a righteous expectation that order for all will be implemented, and quickly. However, there are power struggles that emerge once the common enemy is removed. This phenomenon has been observed in various historical contexts, from the French Revolution to the more recent collapse and unknown outcome of Palestine.
I would think that revolutionary forces would learn from history and delegate visionaries to prepare for how they will govern when they are in power. But that would be wishful thinking. It did not happen in Mozambique. None of it. (In my story Antonio, a character and an idealistic freedom fighter, becomes a victim of the change he espoused.) History shows that revolutionaries do not learn from other failed revolutions.
IS THERE A BETTER WAY TO CHANGE?
There are revolutions that resulted in better governance. Successful transitions don’t make headlines. Major political transitions that have led to improved governance, include, most notably, the American Revolution (1765-1783) that established a stable democratic system that has endured…so far.
Another that I relate closely with is the South African transition from apartheid in the early 1990s, which, despite its many challenges, led to a multi-racial democracy. And there were others: the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia (1989); the Singing Revolution in Baltic States (1987-1991), which peacefully transitioned to independence and democracy for Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; and the Tunisian Revolution (2010-2011), often considered the most successful of the Arab Spring revolutions, leading to democratic reforms. There were others.
For a comprehensive analysis, check out the upcoming Ozymandias (Grove Atlantic) by University of Cambridge professor of international relations Ayse Zarakol. The publisher said it is a book that begins with “the dictators of the ancient world” and shows how “the spread of world religion and later democratic revolutions served to counter their power, and what this history teaches us as we confront another wave of autocrats.” A publication date has not been announced.
Finally, the Carnation Revolution in Portugal (1974) ended the Estado Novo regime and led to democracy—except in Mozambique, the ex-colony.
Which begs the question:
What is the responsibility of a new regime to correct the sins of a past regime?
Afterall, Portugal lost its colony after their revolution, so why should they care?
Fairness: The revolutionary’s greatest challenge
One cannot discuss revolution without considering its deceptively softer side: the allure of freedom.
At the heart of the desire for freedom is a yearning for fairness. The influence of this factor should not be underestimated. After the hard years leading to the revolution, does the newly liberated population call itself free? The perception of freedom depends on laws that are seen to be fair. Too often however, in post-revolutionary governance there is a reluctance to enforce laws on a population weary of oppressive law enforcement. The new regime has a fear of being perceived as the same as the overthrown regime. Leaders strive to maintain popular support and will resort to favoritism and corruption. Law enforcement becomes selective based on personal or political connections. Informal power structures emerge that obfuscate devious methods to benefit the privileged few. The long-term consequences of this is the erosion of public trust. It creates an opportunity to return to authoritarian methods to regain control.
Here is an excerpt from my novel of what Antonio, the idealistic freedom fighter thought of corruption:
“The mission schools are still used to recruit slave labor for the big farms, many of them children. We know what Jomo Kenyatta said during the Mau Mau revolution. Do you know what he said about the church?” He stands behind the chair and rocks it on two legs. “Do you?”
“I have no idea,” I say.
“No, of course you don’t. He said, ‘When the missionaries came, the Africans had the land and the Christians had the Bible. They taught us to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land, and we had the Bible.’ So no, these community produce farms will not be managed by corrupt leaders—religious or otherwise. If that happens, Frelimo will bomb them out of their expensive cars and burn their churches. The message will be clear: corruption will not be tolerated—neither European nor African, white or black.”
The reluctance to enforce laws, while understandable, can significantly contribute to the “Revolutionary’s Dilemma.” It creates a governance gap that can be exploited, leading to favoritism and corruption. This, in turn, can undermine the very principles the revolution sought to establish—Antonio knew this, and was punished for his hard line.
Successful post-revolutionary governments find ways to enforce laws fairly and transparently, while clearly distinguishing their methods from those of the previous regime. This might involve extensive reform of law enforcement, clear communication with the public about the need for fair law enforcement and the establishment of accountability mechanisms.
IT GETS COMPLICATED
There are no easy answers for revolutionaries; “world-building” (a term I borrow, not coincidentally, from science fiction and fantasy), is complicated by the demands of responsibility, one of which is addressing past injustices.
In 1970 Hannah Arendt, an American political philosopher was credited in the New Yorker saying, “The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative on the day after the revolution”.
In other words, fair governance is hard, messy and inconvenient. but is ultimately honorable. However, revolution should never be equated with freedom.
This is why I republished my novel; what I wrote in 2011 remains just as relevant in our world today. It is why I produced the audiobook for Audible listeners to in August 2024. I did not want to write a treatise about revolution. I wrote a novel about the lives of individuals that were changed forever because of a revolution. The reparations never came, and seldom do.
