Russian Independence in and How it Relates to Edmund Burkes Theory - Term Paper Example

?Russian Independence in and how it relates to Edmund Burke’s Theory Introduction The definition of western civilization is necessary in this context, for better understanding. Civilization has been defined differently by different scholars but its general description is that, it is a manner in which a grouping of people, relate to their cultural backgrounds, which will disclose their identity and distinguish them from the rest. Culture means the way a group of people live, their religion, their beliefs and tradition, and their history in general. During the Russian cold war era, the `west’ referred to America and its allies. So western civilization originated from America, and involved how they lived and the practices they involved themselves in. (Bova, 2003, pg 9) Overview of Russian history In the period between 1970s and early 1980s, Russia was a calm nation that maintained the status quo. The president at that time, Leonid Brezhnev, was widely regarded as an incompetent leader, who kept a cabinet full of old, tired individuals who were not highly charged nor inspired. Moreover, the military kept away from political matters and there were not even the slightest sense of unrest among the population. However, this state had a negative impact on Russia’s economy at the time and she started falling behind economically as compared to other nations such as the United States, Japan Europe and China (Hough 61). The turn of events that eventually led to the revolution after the 1989 elections have the symptoms like the ones held by Edward Burke in his theory of modern revolution. This paper, therefore seeks to argue the events that led to the Russian coup de tat and to provide evidence whether they conformed or disagreed to the theory proposed by Burke. An overview of Edmund Burke’s Theory of Modern Revolution Burke started to have thoughtful insights into political matters such as the French revolution as early as 1787-8. He accurately predicted that the revolution will be a total catastrophe. He attributed it mostly to philosophies that had created a rift between divine will the general human population. Burke had two insights concerning modern revolution in France. One, he believed that the French still had the aspects of the ancient constitution and he gave an example of the ancient constitution of England. He believed that after the constitutions reforms, there was great possibility of adopting a good constitutional progress that would be peaceful. He believed that there was no need for any inhuman acts that would bring down prominent leaders that ruled the land. He never believed or advocated for the revolution way of dealing with political matters. These revolution issues lead to Burke wanting to get more insights into it. It leads many people to know Burke as the inciter of conservativeness during the century. He argued that revolution would be the last solution in resolving the catastrophes that entangled any government. He viewed revolutions as a past gone philosophy, which easily destroyed the morality of the society, and in fact it broke the social ties the society enjoyed. Revolution, according to Burke, is a process that undermined the essence of civilization. He looked at the revolution approach as the destructor of the normal orders and positional powers. Authority was undermined by revolution also. He viewed that those who did not respect the law, and those that used violence to enforce their ideas, were the main cause of revolution, which had the basis of destruction and harmful intentions. (Burke & Clark, 2001, pg 69) Burke’s theory did not analyze what revolution was all about, but focused on the originality of the revolution, the violence and the religious implications it caused to the society, the sudden collapse of the government, and the results all these actions lead to. Burke therefore had an outstanding opinion that was greatly respected in the nineteenth century. His support for the older reign in France was the main pointer to how he greatly opposed revolution. He noticed that the old French order, was not as cruel and terrible as people judged it, but also entailed a lot of positive minded and hardworking individuals, who had the pleas of the citizens at heart. He asked for recognition to the great ideas that they invented. Burke insisted that there was possibility that reforming the order was the better option. He thought the major reason for revolution in France was that the people felt that the order punished them, and abused their rights, which they wanted to protect. But was the revolution approach the only option? Was there an option that never involved the violence and other primitive actions? Was reform a more civilized manner to deal with such issues? Many questions possibly came up. Burke, anyway, had the answers to these questions. The answer, which was a modern resolution and a more civilized approach, was reform, not revolt. (Burke & Clark, 2001, pg 73) The Russian independence in 1991 Russia was under a Soviet ruling ever since, until a coup that was experienced in August, 1991. Immediately after the coup, the Soviet drastically lost focus, and was in fact crashing down rapidly, yet there was no established Russian state. The man in charge at that time, Yeltis was accused by many nationalists, for allowing unexpected dissolution of the Soviet regime in December 1991. However, the union’s fate was decided by the coup in August, 1991. After signing the agreement secretly with Ukraine and Belarus, Yeltis made Russia a member of the Commonwealth state, meaning that Russia was an independent state, and the Sovereign Union was the past (McFaul, 2002, pg 129).The independence was declared on 24th August, 1991. This marked a new beginning. (Minahan, 1998, pg 205) Yeltis had many options, after the attempted coup of 1991. If he decided to attempt what other leaders of his transition did, then the coup was just the best opportunity to create a government that was authoritative. An authoritative state meant disbanding all the institutions that were not under the president’s scope of demand. It meant suspension of other political unions and to involve the police and other law enforcing departments in implementing harsh executive rules and policing. Any state that had any of these ruling styles was more of a dictatorship than democratic way. This was therefore expected from Yeltis. (McFaul, 2002, pg 128) Contrary to his first option, Yeltis had the other alternative, which was a more civilized approach in modern governance. He could have considered the chance for adopting a new political structure, and also ensure a better economical stand, which could ensure economic stability. There was possibility for a transformation that would effectively force change. When the first option is compared to the second, it is evident that the second option made sense, it would not involve violence hence was depicted more civilized characteristics. (McFaul, 2002, pg 127) The relation between the Russian independence and Edmund’s theory For better relation of the two, use of thesis statements will be used for a good guide. There are three statements to support the possibility of a relationship between the Russian independence that happened in 1991 and the Edmund Burke’s theory of modern revolution. Is the revolution approach the most appropriate for implementing change? Though the Russian sovereign union experienced a major coup in August 1991, their president hardly jumped to the conclusion to exercise dictatorship, as this would result to greater revolutions. Yeltis opted for a different option that was more reasonable and would not lead to violations and harm. He typically did what Edmund’s theory suggested, which was to implement reform strategies, and try to change the entire organization of the governing bodies. Edmund had insisted that instead of revolution, the governance would integrate change, as most of those in governance had potential to rule better, if they were subjected to a different environment brought by change. Evidently, if appears that revolution was an outdated way of approach, due to the results it lead to. “Reform is the recommended way to acquiring the best political and economic stability” Revolution had caused the change of Russia, from the sovereign union to an independent state. This took place in 1991. However, it is obvious that during the coup of August, 1991, many lives were wasted to death, families lost their loved ones, and there was high tension due to economic instabilities among many other consequences. At the end of the day, there was enormous loss. Assuming there was reforming processes instead, which proves to be the best option for change implementation, it would have solved the problems in a more civilized manner and the tragic happening of the coup would easily be prevented. No wonder Edmund’s theory advocated for the reform approach. It was in fact the `civilized’ approach. In other instances, revolution is more efficient than reform Using military strategies to revolt against present authorities is not a new thing especially to states that struggled for independence. There has been a lot of effort towards revolution in military affairs (Gray, 2006). Though use of military approaches to enforce rights is not advised, because it does not qualify as the civilized way, it works in some situations. After the august coup in Russia, it gave leeway to other options for better governing. So the fact that Edmund was in opposition of the revolting side, does not put it off. Other instances require extended action for change. Russia is the best example of a state that employed revolution and got what they wanted, independence. Conclusion In summary, it is evidence that reforming options are better than revolution which has adverse negative effects and affects its victims. There was revolution by Russians who believed it was a language their government understood better. But despite that, reform which is tricky to enforce, could yield better results. That was the aim of the Edmund’s theory, to show the differences between reform and revolt strategies. Works Cited Hough F. Democratization and Revolution in the USSR, 1985-1991. Brookings Institute Press, 1997 Me Faul M. Russia’s Unfinished Revolution: Political change from Gorbuchev to Putin. Cornell University Press, 2002 Bova R. Russia and Western Civilization. Cultural and historical encounters. M.E. Sharpe, 2003 Colin & Gray. Recognizing and Understanding Revolutionary change in warfare. The sovereignty of context. Vol 232-2, ISBN 58487-232-2, Feb.2006 Clark, S. Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Barke. Stanford University, 2001 Read More