Authors: Lipset
Summary: This approximately 3500 word entry defines revolutions, discusses early modern political revolutions and distinguishes them from more recent social revolutions, and explores social revolutions in developing nations.
The entry defines revolutions as the '[r]apid, basic transformations of a nation's governmental institutions and ideals...." Political revolutions abruptly transform governing systems. Social revolutions, on the other hand, change political and class systems and are generally fuelled by popular protest. Scholars who study revolutions generally debate whether modern revolutions have actually led to greater democracy or whether, instead, they have reinforced or even created tyrannical systems.
Early modern revolutions such as the Dutch, English and American ones are political revolutions. The entry explores each of these in great detail, seeking to discern the revolutionary effect on democratization. Although the Dutch, English and American Revolutions certainly created more liberal governmental arrangements and removed obstacles to democratization, none of the three proximately resulted in actual democracy.
The French Revolution of the late eighteenth century gave revolution its more common contemporary meaning. It was not just a political revolution, but rather the French Revolution was a fundamental sociopolitical transformation propelled in large part by popular protest. In this sense it is very similar to the Russian and Chinese Revolutions of the early twentieth century. The entry details the three cases and demonstrates similar dictatorial outcomes in each of them.
Finally, the entry turns to social revolutions in developing nations during the twentieth century. After analyzing a variety of illustrative examples, the entry concludes that most social revolutions in developing nations resulted in authoritarian regimes rather than democratic ones. The entry briefly considers the Nicaraguan and Eastern European revolutions and what appears to be some clear democratic results.