Social, Economic and Political disconcert.

Social, Economic and Political disconcert.

Man’s social dimension is inseparable from the political animal he is. Man is always called by nature to live in a setup that facilitates his encounter with others. Through these interactions, he seeks to come up with a system that will govern. These systems comprise up in a way that an individual will always need the larger society. Aristotle, a renowned Ancient Greek philosopher, states, holds that it is either a god or a beast that does not require the community.

The most fundamental goal that each society seek to achieve is the common good. This disposition holds the primary reason why any political system would care to exist. However, political systems are as follows. There is a monarchy, democratic or even communist states. The definition of the common good sought by each of the political setups differs with each. In a monarch, the King or Queen determines the common good. In a democratic state, the natural product is all members of that society but from various capacities. Communist nations believe in having everything for everyone, and private ownership is never encouraged; a depiction of China and Russia. The political instability is agitated by an imbalance of social, economic and political milieu.

Social, Economic and Political disconcert.

It is a common belief that revolution starts with a small group which feels that their need is denied. It is this small group that is united by a common goal which, in their quest for their voice to be heard, arouse a higher need in a larger group yet until you find almost the whole nation uprising. According to (Gurr, 1993), minorities rebel when their beliefs in the communal setups are violated. For instance, a collective group, as he calls them, can organize and cause an uprising which can have a political connotation.

However, another factor that is closely related to socio-economic is the need to have an equilibrium. The need to have a well balanced and behaviour that is coordinated by value often stabilize the political system (Tiruneh, 2014). Thus, when the benefit sought by the society in a given setup does not intend towards achieving the common good for all, then there is a high probability that there will be a revolt.

According to (Gottschalk, 2015), there is no consistent cause of revolution since the behaviour of people in epoch determines hit based on the prevailing conditions within which they are livings in. Therefore, much of the given causes will tend to change from time to time, and thus, no definite reason t explicitly. Such a situation will prove to be a headache to any given regime simply because they cannot prepare adequately towards the prevention of a revolt.

Philosophers on Political Revolutions

Contemporary renown sociologists feel that the causes of revolution, mainly political, which in most case are, is where there is a social disconnection within the system—the abuse of social values or overlooked, leading to the group of persons affected to retaliate. However, the sociologist differs in some regions of approach. For instance, (Gurr, 1993) asserts that the existence of communal groups which can either be religious or cultural and which do not have any political setup runs the affairs of the state. A conflict arises when the governing group tends to suppress the rights of the governed group.

Social movements are also credited to cause instability, especially when it comes to the determination of national or state values (Tilly, 1998). For instance, a religious movement can decide to vote out an incumbent who does not support their ethical values. Due to their numbers, the outcome is considered revolutionary. If there is any other social group that can speak in one accord and face the regime head-on, then it is deemed to be lethal and effective even more than a guerrilla front. However, (Skocpol, 1976) feels that a revolution should have some tinge of violence in it. The brutal regime ought to be ousted with maximum force possible and without hesitation. He also asserts that social revolutions can be expressed in the form of resistance and rebellion until there is a change of guard.

Oppressed People, Rebellious People

China and Russia had revolutions which changed the course of their histories. Russia had to undergo a revolution after it got itself entangled with enemies, a situation that saw its economic power sink (Skocpol, 1976). Russian enemies were powerful and because World War I had a heavy toll on its economy, it ha to rely on western loans which, at the moment, made it more vulnerable.

However, (Tanter, 2014) recognizes three factions which either win or lose out in any revolutionary regime. The revolutionaries carry the day; the incumbent loses while the discontented confused because they are not sure which side they ought to pledge loyalty. The revolutionaries are the oppressed who takes on rebellion and push for their agendas. China’s revolution passed many phases from dynasty to another and the urge to expand the territory (Gardner, 2015). This revolutions often started as civil wars, and the motive was political. The social life of people was affected, social classes affirmed, and the peasants lived at the mercies of their masters. Once the oppression becomes unbearable, an uprising is born.

Conclusion

The society is knit with fibres that are a thread in values and dignity of the human person. The political need to have an order rises from the social inclinations of man in his natural habitat. However, some take advantage of the situation and suppress others. The common good which becomes a contention ceases to be familiar, and individuals or regimes own it. This situation calls for a rebellion which ultimately ends up to become a revolution. There are many kinds of revolutions that take place even today, not only in national arenas but also in small local ways. Man will remain to be political, and he often forgets that the common good is for all.