POLITICS AND SOCIAL CHANGE: REFORMS, REVOLUTIONS AND MILITARY COUPS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Political and social change refers to the varying change in human behaviour and institutions, in response to stimuli from society and the power relations between social groups. What then is change? What makes it necessary? What are the different forms of change? Change is the different in process, form and structure in response to certain stimuli or factors. Therefore, political and social changes are caused by certain factors or reasons in which men struggle to effect change with the hope that it will make life better for the majority of people living in society. If politics is defined as “who gets What, When and how”, the political change has to do with changes in who gets what, when and how. Changes in human behaviour towards constituted authority, in the state, in leadership, in political institutions and structures. Therefore, a change in government is a form of political change, just as a change in form of government, for instance, change from a Monarchical regime to a Republican regime is a from of political change, just as independence from colonial rule. Social change, is a much wider concept, used in refererign to very important changes in human societies, human behaviour – his values, his culture, his norms and inter-group relations, and human organisations all in response to a given set of stimuli. Social change is pervasive, leading to fundamental changes in a people’s life, their attitudes, expectations and goals. In some cases, social change takes place along side political change in what is often called a Revolution but at times it does not.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

At the end of this unit, you should be able to:

1. explain the reasons for changes in the political system 
2.  differentiate between a coup d’etat and a revolution 
3. describe the characteristics of African new states after independence. 

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 Types of Change

There are two broad forms of change, politically and socially speaking, violent and non-violent change. Violent change is often viewed as an illegal, unconstitutional act and bloody method of effecting change. Examples are military coup d’etat, mass insurrection or uprisings involving the use of fire-arms, and mass revolution. Such changes were common in the 18th and 19th century Europe, the classic French and American Revolutions, and the 1917 Great October Socialist Revolution which took place in Russia turning it from a semi-feudal backward empire into a socialist superpower within a period of forty years. In the 20th

Century the bulk of violent changes have occurred in the Third World countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America which are struggling to embark on the path of development.

Peaceful change on the other hand is change that does not involve any violence or the spilling of blood. It often takes the form of constitutional changes through the ballot box or the electoral process. It follows laid down procedures and relies often on the goodwill of the people concerned and a desire to abide by the wishes of the majority. Thus, governments can be changed peacefully through the ballot box, and government officials removed in accordance with the popular will. Such change also involves the use of peaceful demonstrations, petitions, campaigns and moral persuasion to demand for change. Such acts are common in the insdustrialised countries such as France, England, U.S. A., Japan, etc.

However, a peaceful change does not often lead to fundamental, deep or structural changes in society, rather they lead to reforms. Reforms are therefore, modifications or slight changes in the political and social structure of the society. It often aims at making a series of adjustments that would make the political and social system more efficient and stable.

Examples are the social policies introduced in the U.S. under President Reagan and President Ibrahim Babangida’s MAMSER. Reforms are also called ‘Revolutions from above’ since the changes are induced by the political leadership that is, from the top leaving the power structure intact.

Revolution or violent change is often the ‘revolution from below’ often carried out by and justified in the name of the oppressed and exploited majority who seek to break the chains of bondage and regain their freedom and dignity. According to W.F. Wetheim, “Revolution is aimed at the overthrow of an existing social order and of a prevalent power structure.’ Thus, it is a process of socio-political transformation or change which must be differentiated from a coup d’etat, strike or acts of assassination. Since the coup d’etat is aimed primarily at political change i.e. a change in the political leadership, it is not a revolution.
According to Chalmers Johnson, revolutions are primarily social phenomena which arise from the failure of society to meet the demands put upon it. This is the liberal or behavioural position. On the other hand, the Radical or Marxist position conceptualizes revolution differently. To cite the famous passage from Marx:

“…At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production on-what is but a legal expression for the same thing-with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From all forms to development of the productive forces, these relations turn into fetters. Then begins an epoch of social
revolution”.

For Karl Marx, the most important relations of production are those between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (Capital and Labour) as such the contradictions in relations between the exploiter class of capitalists and the exploited workers would get to a point where it can only be resolved by a revolution in which the proletariat would overthrow the class of capitalists, destroy capitalist political structures, the capitalist state, and oppressive relations of production and establish a new socialist state, with new structures and new relations of production. It is therefore not surprising that V. I. Lenin, a Marxist, a father of the Russian revolution stated that “the transfer of state power from one class to another class is the first, the principal, the basic sign of revolution”.

From the radical perspective therefore, a revolution is a mass movement directed at change in order to put an end to mass exploitation, oppression, poverty and misery. Perhaps, the most comprehensive
definition is that by C. B. Macpherson, which conceptualized revolution as the …transfer of state power by means involving the use of threat of organized unauthorized force, the subsequent
consolidation of that transferred power, with a view to bringing about a fundamental change in social, economicand political institutions.

3.2 What Leads to Political and Social Changes?

According to Chalmers Johnson’s explanation, political and social change is the outcome of failures in the political system, and the failure of society to respond to demands put on it.

This approach sees change as the outcome of the failure of the political leadership to act decisively to ensure the stability of the political system; and is directed at preventing change. As such its analytical value has been doubted and criticized.

Change is also the outcome of the failure of rulers to respond to the demands of the people, and becomes inevitably violent when all legal channels for demands for reform have been blocked. As reforms, socio-political change can be the outcome of the need to modify and adjust the state and society in order to guarantee peace and stability, and make the system work better.
Usually, social frustration could be explored by a well-organised opposition united around a common ideology or programme which offers an alternative to the existing undesired status quo. In some cases, change is accompanied by violence since the ruling elite and government resists change, which would make them loose authority, wealth and power.

From the radical position, revolutions arise from the material conditions in a given society. When there is exploitation of many by the few, it gets to a point when the contradictions “burst asunder” and the exploited rise up against and defeat their exploiters thereby laying the basis for a new society when man is free; where the quality of life is better, where the basic necessities of life are guaranteed to everybody. Examples of such revolutions are those of Cuba, the U.S.A., Vietnam, the then U.S.S.R., China, Nicaragua and Iran.

SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE

Explain the reasons for reforms revolutions and coup d’etats.

3.3 Characteristics of the New States

A new state is one, which has recently acquired political independence, and has political control over its own affairs. The absence of a ‘Nation-state’ is the root of instability in most of African countries. For example, the new state of Nigeria, which came into existence in October 1960, consists of many “nations” such as the Yorubas, Ibos, Hausas, Ogonis, Edos, Ibibios, Tivs, Fulanis, etc.
At independence in most African states, the political perspectives and attitudes to authority were still very much shaped by the experiences of the traditional system, which had prevailed for centuries before the colonial contacts. However, under colonial rule, some of these attitudes and political institutions were transformed while new ones were created to support the colonial state.

In the ‘scramble for Africa’ of the 1880’s and 1890’s, the present day boundaries of the new states were born in partition between the British, the French, the Portuguese, the Belgian, Spanish and others. The results of such ad hoc and intense competition among the European powers was the enclosure of several traditional units (people) into a particular colonial territory and thus creating the future problem of cultural pluralism for the New States. This pluralism – the existence of loyalties to groups based upon shared religion, race, tribe or language – now poses a major danger to the very existence of the new states. Nationhood – the achievement of a full and overriding commitment to the state from its inhabitants against the demands of sub-national loyalties – does not exist in most cases.

In most parts of Africa affected by non-settler colonial domination, colonial rule did not sweep away existing patterns of behaviour. Rather, in social terms, the bringing together of workers from different areas with different traditions tended to increase awareness of individuals as well as group differences. Similarly, in administrative terms, separation was strengthened by the politics pursued by the colonial authorities. Thus, under a system of ‘Indirect Rule’ the British employed the existing patterns of control and communication (in Northern Nigeria) to rule large numbers of colonial subjects without the expense of creating their own administrative machinery. Thus, where an existing ruler seemed moderately efficient and suitably pliable to British pressures, the traditional structure was maintained and given the backing of the colonial state (authority). And where such ruler was found hustle to British pressures, he was removed and replaced by a puppet ruler.
In the colonial and post-colonial period, many of the traditional values were shattered because of the creation of a new economic order in which subsistence rural agriculture was replaced by the production of cash crops for an international market either on plantations or by peasant producers. Finally, the introduction of Western education led to rest ratification in which status came to be based upon such modern characteristics as income, education and skill, and position in the new power structure.

Throughout the African continent, the claims by the elite to some form of recognition as a result of educational achievements were rejected because of an overwhelming paternalism of the colonial administrators. Thus, because they could not secure genuine equality with Europeans in social, economic or political terms – the members of this elite determined to respect Kwame Nkrumah’s dictum of ‘seeking first the political kingdom and everything else will be added to you’ consequently led to the anti-colonial nationalism.

4.0 CONCLUSION

Change is an inevitable form of political existence. Change politically and socially speaking can either take violent or nonviolent means. Change comes about as result of a disruption in equilibrium in the social system.

5.0 SUMMARY 

We have briefly defined what reform, Coup d’etat and revolution are. We also explained what bring about social and political change. We emphasized the difference between Coup d’etat and revolutions. We also examined the features of Africa new states.

6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1. Discuss the features of Africa new states. 
2.  What external factors contribute to any particular coup known to you? 
3.  What impact has the military made in solving socio-economic and political problems in Africa? 
4. Distinguish between military coups and a revolution.