History of Philosophy

A revolution is plausible as legitimate when rulers systematically violate the basic rights and political trust that justify their authority, and when peaceful remedies are unavailable or ineffective. The three cases below illustrate how these conditions were met and why each revolution can be defended as legitimate from the perspective of social-contract and liberal political theory. 1. American Revolution - Grounds of illegitimacy: Colonial grievances—taxation without representation, arbitrary interference with colonial self-government, and perceived violations of English liberties—were treated by colonists as breaches of the political trust linking rulers and subjects. - Exhaustion of remedies: Petitioning, negotiation, and legal appeals were attempted and largely rebuffed by Parliament and the Crown. - Justification: The revolution aimed to establish a government whose primary function was the protection of natural rights (life, liberty, property), consistent with Lockean standards. The resulting constitutional framework institutionalized consent of the governed and legal protections for rights, supporting claims of legitimacy. 2. French Revolution - Grounds of illegitimacy: The ancien régime exhibited extreme social inequality, arbitrary fiscal exactions, and a political structure that denied effective representation to the majority, undermining civic rights and basic dignity. - Exhaustion of remedies: Calls for reform (e.g., the Estates-General) revealed structural blockages to meaningful change within existing institutions. - Justification: Although the revolution entailed severe violences and later authoritarian phases, its initial republican and rights-oriented aims—equality before the law and popular sovereignty—responded to systematic violations of political and social justice. From the standpoint that legitimacy requires protecting citizens’ basic claims, the early revolution can be defended as a corrective to entrenched injustice. 3. Glorious Revolution (England, 1688) - Grounds of illegitimacy: King James II’s policies—religious favoritism, attempts to bypass Parliament, and perceived designs on arbitrary rule—were widely seen as violating English liberties and the constitutional balance. - Exhaustion of remedies: Parliamentary and legal mechanisms failed to check the perceived overreach; a political settlement was arranged through elite and popular consensus. - Justification: The replacement of the monarch by William and Mary, followed by the Bill of Rights (1689), reasserted parliamentary authority and legal protections for subjects. Because the change restored constitutional constraints and liberties without introducing unchecked authoritarian rule, it can be regarded as a legitimate corrective under constitutionalist principles. Concluding note Legitimacy judgments depend on standards one adopts (e.g., Lockean natural rights, popular sovereignty, constitutionalism). These three episodes each meet core criteria often invoked in political philosophy: substantial violations of rights or constitutional order, failure of peaceful redress, widespread support for change, and efforts to install political structures aimed at protecting rights. While historical complexities (violence, factional motives, unintended outcomes) complicate simple verdicts, the cited revolutions can be plausibly defended as legitimate attempts to restore or create political orders that better secure fundamental rights and the consent of the governed. Suggested further reading: John Locke, Two Treatises of Government; J.G.A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment; Simon Schama, Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution.