How Reasonable Is the For a Natural Right to Revolution - Case Study Example

How reasonable is the case for a natural right to revolution? Introduction The right to overthrow a political administration which acts against the will of the people is a natural right for revolution in political philosophy. History shows many examples in which the governments acted against the interests of the public have been dethroned by people’s agitations and subsequent revolutions. American Revolution and the French revolution are examples in which the people utilized their natural right to displace the selfish administrations. American Revolution started in 1775 when the British government attempted to pass some laws, enforce several taxes, and increase more control over the colonies. The colonies strongly objected to these laws and taxes and the result was the beginning of American Revolution (The American Revolution, 2010) Human being has a tendency to protest against any dominating force upon them. Nobody wants to be ruled by a totalitarian administration under which the human rights and personal integrity has been questioned. The question of whether the right to revolution is a natural or inherited one or acquired one is significant. This paper tries to analyze the question ‘How reasonable is the case for a natural right to revolution? Natural right to revolution Tierney, (1997) has argued that the idea of natural right is a moral one and it is inherent in human being (Tierney, 1997, p.5). The above argument has many loopholes as we can see so many societies around us in which such rights are not visible. For example, the Chinese society is under the iron fist of communist regime and the people’s agitations against the communist regime have been dealt with iron fist. Saudi Arabian society is another example. Even though Muslims in many other countries like UAE or Turkey is enjoying immense freedom, it is not so in Saudi Arabia. Traditions and customs in the Saudi Arabian society have forced not only the Muslim women, but even others to cover their entire body using some kind of clothes while going out. The influence of religion is so strong in Saudi Arabia compared to many other similar Islamic republics. The Saudi people are well aware of these problems in Saudi societies, but they are not protesting or forced to stay away from any protest because of the immense influence of religion there. Keck, (2005) has mentioned that the right to criticize, to challenge, and to resist became a central feature of Enlightenment thought (Keck, 2005, p.31). Man is a social animal. At the same time he dislikes any form of suppression imposed upon him. Moreover, man is the most intelligent living thing in the world, which helps him to formulate views and opinions about all the things happening around him. Since no two individuals are alike either physically or mentally which means that the views, opinions, beliefs and attitudes of two individuals may also vary. Same thing may be perceived differently by two persons because of these physical and mental differences between them. In some cases, people try to impose their views and opinions upon other people. For example, in China like communist countries, many people don’t have beliefs in communist principles. But the communist regime uses its muscle power to suppress such dislikes of people. Tiananmen Square agitations of 1989 were a reflection of people’s protests against the communist regime. “It was violently broken up by government forces, leading to mass criticism around the world. During the governments attempts to subdue the protesters, thousands were killed, with credible estimates ranging from 1,000 to 4,000 people killed during the demonstration” (Smith, 2010) Cirtautas (1997) has defined democracy as a set of ideas which bases its claim to legitimacy on the principles of natural law specifically on the natural rights doctrine (Cirtautas, 1997, p.17). In democracy, a government elected by the people will work for them. In other words, people control the government. Governments cannot function against the will of the people. In short, democracy represents a desirable goal or reality for the people today which can conserve their natural rights up to certain extent compared to other political regimes. Arkes (2002) mentioned that the existence of natural law is the ultimate guarantor of a right to revolution (Arkes, 2002 p.12). Natural law or the law of nature explains the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and hence it is valid everywhere irrespective of the region, religion, culture or community. The basic needs of all the humans are almost same. Everybody needs food, shelter, clothing, freedom of expression and the right to live freely in this world without any suppression from any corner. Natural law allows people to live freely as far as their activities do not cause any harm to other people. Any attempt to limit this freedom of people might lead to revolution. We have witnessed such revolutions in America and France in the past. French Revolution was not merely a response to the flaws of the present government, but a reaction against hereditary monarchy in general (Keck, 2005, p.23). God has not created somebody as the administrators and others as slaves. The ancient monarchs considered the monarchy as their hereditary right. Even inefficient people got the power to rule a vast country simply because of heredity in France like countries earlier which forced the people to protest against such monarchs. Even in the present civilized political setup, more precisely saying, even in the current democratic setups some administrators use such hereditary claims to rule a country. For example, India is one of the prominent democratic countries in the world. Indira Gandhi, the daughter of one of the architects of modern India, Jawaharlal Nehru has ruled India as the nominee of Indian national congress party for a substantial period. After the assassination of Indira Gandhi, her son Rajiv Gandhi became India’s prime minister. When Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated, Congress party tried to appoint his widow Sonia Gandhi as the next prime minister. But the protests across the country forced the congress party to rethink about their decision. Even now the son of Rajiv Gandhi, Mr Rahul Gandhi is making every effort to bring the power back to the Nehru family. In short, hereditary monarchy is present even in the current democratic setups, but in different forms. The first major thinker of the seventeenth century who applied ne methods to human sciences was Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). He has argued that all human laws derived from natural law. He also argued that when human law departed from natural law, the outcome would be disaster. In his opinion, all monarchs ruled not by the consent of heaven, but by the consent of the people. Hobbes considered human being as material objects. He has given more importance to the material life of human rather than the life related to soul. He thought that the emotions and feelings are reactions to external stimuli (Hooker, 1996). Hobe’s arguments were addressed only the material side of human life and failed to account for the mental aspects of human life. We know that no human will be satisfied in the current world if he was unable to satisfy his mental needs. Mental needs and physical needs are equally important for the current generation. For example, in communist China, most of the people have all their physical needs addressed by the administration, but freedom of expression like mental needs are prohibited there. We cannot say that all the Chinese people are living happily at present since their physical needs were met by the administration. “For Hobbes, humanity is better off living under the circumscribed freedoms of a monarchy rather than the violent anarchy of a completely equal and free life. Using this reasoning, Hobbes argued for unquestioning obedience of authority” (Hooker, 1996). The purpose of a society is to maximize the happiness of its individuals. But these individuals are always motivated by selfish interests. “There cannot be natural right if human thought in spite of its essential incompleteness is not capable of acquiring genuine, universally valid final knowledge” (Strauss, 1965, p.24). The validity of natural right is associated with the universal acceptance of final knowledge. The right which is true in one society should be true in all the societies in order to make it as a natural right. But societies are divided based on the different thoughts related to religion, politics, social and economical aspects. For example, traditional Muslim societies like that in Saudi Arabia have given more prominence to the religious beliefs and customs whereas in Turkey like liberalized societies, such adamant beliefs with respect to religion are not visible even though both countries have a larger segment of population believe in Islam. In other words, even in the same religion itself, traditions and beliefs are different. In Christian religion also we have different beliefs and hence different churches like, Catholics and Protestants. So it is impossible to formulate a natural law based on religion because of the differences in beliefs and attitudes even in the same religion. James A. Donald (n.d) has argued that natural law and natural rights follow from the nature of man and the world. In his opinion, we have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are and moreover true law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state (Donald, n.d). State has no ultimate power in deciding about the destiny of a person. State is authorised by the people to work for the common good of its citizen rather than the selfish interests confined to a small group or community. If the state fails to execute its duties properly for the wellbeing of its citizen, the citizen has every right to question it and take necessary actions against the state. In other words, the citizen has the right to conduct revolution against the state if their rights were neglected by the state. “Man is a rational animal, a social animal, a property owning animal, and a maker of things” (Donald, n.d). Man has different roles in the society. Moreover, he has different needs as well. He has every right to defend and protect his needs. The purpose of state is to give protection to his basic needs. “Natural law derives from the nature of man and the world, just as physical law derives from the nature of space, time, and matter” (Donald, n. d). So state cannot act against the nature of the man as it will result in unexpected outcomes. For example, it is fact that current electricity is dangerous if it happens to pass through our body. On the other hand it is useful if it allows to pass through the transmission wires or proper conductors. Same way state is good as far as it conserves the interests of the people. Any attempt to shift the attention from the matters related to the public will create problems to the state administration. John Locke has tried to explain the natural law, by emphasizing the nature of man as a maker of things, and a property owning animal. Locke has argued that a ruler is legitimate as far as he upholds the law. A ruler has no right to make the people to be obeyed. Moreover, in his opinion, rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals, and should be dealt with in accordance with natural law, as applied in a state of nature (Donald, n.d). Conclusions The right to revolution is reasonable when the natural law violated by the state or administration. State is an entity formulated by the people in order to protect and defend their natural rights. Hereditary monarchies and administrations which focus on the interests of a minority group cannot survive long in the current world. Natural laws are universal. If it is true in America, it should be true in China and Saudi Arabia as well. Man is a social, rational and property owning animal. He has formulated the natural laws for the wellbeing of his life on earth. He has both physical and emotional requirements. Violation of any of the two will agitate him and the result would be the protest or revolution against the agitator. In short, the right to revolution when the natural laws were violated by the administration can be justified. References 1. Arkes, Hadley, (2002), Natural Rights and the Right to Choose, Publisher: Cambridge University Press (September 2, 2002) 2. Cirtautas Arista M.(1997), The Polish Solidarity Movement: Revolution, Democracy and Natural Rights Publisher: Routledge; 1 edition (November 10, 1997) 3. Donald James A. (n.d), Natural Law and Natural Rights, Retrieved on 14 January 2010 from http://jim.com/rights.html 4. Hooker Richard (1996), European Enlightenment, Retrieved on 14 January 2010 from http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ENLIGHT/PREPHIL.HTM 5. Keck, Aaron (2005), Paine and the Right of Revolution, Retrieved on 14 January 2010 from http://cal.sdsu.edu/paine/PDFs/aaron_keck_paper.pdf 6. Smith, (2010), What was the Tiananmen Square Massacre?, Retrieved on 14 January 2010 from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-was-the-tiananmen-square-massacre.htm 7. Strauss Leo, (1965), Natural right and history, Retrieved on 14 January 2010 from http://books.google.co.in/books?id=LT1V8Xgz1EUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Natural+right+to+revolution&source=bl&ots=qm9yLC8KwN&sig=_O0Z1-NHpVfEUSfM3Kjpfr8zmoI&hl=en&ei=RehOS8f6JY3o7AP2sKy5CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CCkQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Natural%20right%20to%20revolution&f=false 8. Tierney Brian, (1997), Publisher: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; 1st edition (January 1, 1997) 9. The American Revolution, (2010), Retrieved on 14 January 2010 from http://www.kidskonnect.com/subject-index/16-history/251-american-revolution.html Read More