Prior to our assumption on whether a revolutionary future is probable or not, we ought to start by defining what precisely a revolution is. As defined by some great revolutionists, in the 1910s, a revolution is the viewpoint of a novel societal direction based on freedom and autonomy unhampered by state capture. Revolutionaries have confidence that all systems of government are based on forcefulness and intimidation, bureaucracy, and imperialism. To sum it up: government equivalents to despotism.
Many folks may approve of that straightforward notion that government power is unavoidably intimidating, yet you wonder if there’s actually an option. However, this begs the question; must we undergo some magnitude of despotism at the hands of the government in order to warrant certain community goods, like education, health care, and infrastructure? Besides, don’t we require the government to guarantee law and order minus intimidation, brutality, highhandedness, and imperialism? Who would safeguard us, if we didn’t have police and a judicial system? But then again, is there a point in having police (law enforcement agency(s)that are more dangerous than the thieves and robbers they are supposed to guard us against?
In view of countless narrations as reported by eyewitnesses, protesters, media (both social and mainstream), human rights activists, as well as international condemnation about police highhandedness, cruelty inhumanness, coupled with the absence of responsibility for such misuses of power, some of you are undoubtedly pooh-poohing at the belief that police are there to safeguard, maintain and uphold the rule of law. In addition, given the dumbfounding number of people tortured, killed, and illegally imprisoned, it’s a bit challenging to take seriously the impression that the criminal justice system is working for the benefit of (all) the general public.
Nonetheless, we ought to be watchful not to castigate the entire government over the specific letdowns just because of one or two failed institutions. There may possibly be unfathomable injustices in Kenya’s criminal justice system, but again, trying to think out loud, maybe those are best undertaken by restructuring, not by eliminating state power completely. The question that comes in therefore is, what is the extent of rot in those institutions? What is the level/percentage of sanity that will be achieved as a result of restructuring the government as compared to abolishing the entire government?
Let’s put away criminal justice for a second and ponder about public justice. Deprived of the intimidating muscle of the government, how do we administer arrangements/covenants, promises/treaties, and safeguard people’s genuine welfare? Under a revolutionary social order, how can I safeguard my welfare when there can be no lawful authorizations or restraints particularly during the transition period? What kind of alternatives do I have, if there are no rules and no government institution to implement them?
Moreover, a revolutionist might argue that, if people had more autonomy, if they were able to decide for themselves on what kind of lives they wanted to lead, what kind of work they wanted to do, and how to spend their time, maybe then there would actually be less lawlessness.But Is revolution the only way to give everyone better autonomy in their lives? What is the contextual thinking of a revolutionist regarding the ordinary presence of the imperial government and its indiscriminate intimidating power marred with bureaucracy? Is it perceived to emasculate individual independence because we never openly agreed to live under its power? Certainly, most of us, if not all ,get to vote for legislatures at different levels of government from the county government to the national government, but once elected, these so-called “legislatures” create their individual pronouncements that may or may not be what their voters (those who voted them in office) want or need. And so, time and again the option we are given is stuck between taking what is offered or totally abandoning what is being offered, with one just as wicked as the other. It’s disheartening to see how indiscriminate that is.
Despite the fact that I find this track of thought convincing, again, I consider that it’s essential to differentiate between how things used to be,or are happening in Kenya, and how governments must conduct or dispense themselves in any open-minded and sovereign state. The two unquestionably come separately, which beseeches the question: what’s the finest way to confront these complications? One may argue that when the damage is overwhelming beyond repair, reforms don’t make sense and so, a total overhaul of the government and its constituent system is imperative and inevitable.
After all is said and done, it all trickles down to one question. Do we surrender some of our sovereignty for the reason that we get some things that can only be provided by the government? But then again, do Revolutionists say or think that those opposed to revolution are deficient in resourcefulness, and that, through revolution, the country can accomplish voluminous prodigious things minus hierarchical intimidation commonly orchestrated by the state?
Therefore, what do you contemplate? Would life be on the mend if every single individual could choose what to do as long as it’s within the confines of human dignity and respect, free from the dictatorship by government and state capture? Do we require the government? If yes, what kind of government? Or is that just something the state has convinced us of? Is revolution a convincing substitute? It goes without saying that when the damage done by the existing government is too devastating beyond restoration, revolution is inevitable.