Leon Wolf
January 24, 2014
Translated by Anna Mausi Shvets

Source: http://leonwolf.livejournal.com/528983.html

In the course of kitchen/Twitter discussions, I was astonished to learn that in many peoples’ heads (even of the most educated and erudite), lingers an unlikely picture of a government which has an absolute mandate to suppress and stop “riots” because it’s the government, damnit. Sacred.

But it’s not like this.

Wikipedia has a detailed description (1). Search by the phrase “right of revolution” (a detailed article in English (2), a shorter article in Russian (3)). Outlined, the thought sounds like this: according to all democratic constitutions, the ultimate origin of power is the people, and because of this, an inalienable right of people is the right to carry out power directly – by revolt and taking it into their own hands in the event that the elected politicians threaten the constitutional system. This is understandable – otherwise the phrase that the people are the only source of power (Article 3 in the the Russian Federation’s Constitution) is left an empty and meaningless declaration. Yes, in the modern world, people (until the blooming of electronic democracy) do not have the means to directly manifest their power, and must do so through representatives. But this is exactly why the legal system must include precautions against tyranny, usurpation of power, and changing the Constitutional order without the consent of the only sources of power. Such a precaution is the right to revolt. Couldn’t be more logical, right?

This uncomplicated thought about the right to revolt as a natural and inalienable right became common in the Era of Enlightenment, and was directly reflected in the Declaration of Independence of the USA (1776) and in the great French Declaration of Rights and Liberties of Man and Citizen (published in 1793).

The USA: But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. (4)

France: When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is for the people and for each portion of the people the most sacred of rights and the most indispensable of duties. (5)

Both of these documents kept their impact and are integral parts of current legal systems of the USA and France. In other countries, the right to revolt is written in their own constitutions, like for example, in the Basic Law of Germany: 

All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available. (6)

By the way, no such formula existed in the Constitution of the Weimar Republic; including it became one of the lessons Germany had to learn in 1933-1945.

Finally, in the preamble of the General Declaration of Human Rights, the fundamental document of international law, there is a clear reference to the right of revolution in the third paragraph:

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law. (7)

meaning that it’s assumed that revolt, even though a forced measure and the last resort, is clearly a part of the arsenal of acceptable reactions to violation of human rights. 

Based on these assumptions, I evaluate the events in Ukraine:

-Peaceful protest against Yanukovych’s refusal to sign the agreement about associating with the EU;
-The scattering of the peaceful protest (but neither side was above criticism, and there were provocations from both sides);
-Still: the continuation of a peaceful citizens’ protest in December;
-The “ruling party” adopting a package of laws, which established a police state which radically limited the rights and liberties of the citizen, and with this, revoked the base norms of the constitutional order;
-The beginning of violent resistance is the realization of the right of the people to revolt.

All logical and correct.

This is why I have no complaints against the protestors and no sympathies for people in helmets and armored vests who continue to carry out unlawful commands instead of quietly going home.

Well, and an elementary FAQ:

Q: Revolution is always terrible! There are corpses, blood, how can you support it?

A: Revolution is bad. But sometimes in life, there are no good decisions, but only a few bad ones, and the question is what is worse. If the alternative is years or decades of tyranny, the choice is obvious. Tyranny will generate (directly or indirectly) many more bodies and will cause greater harm to the human potential of the country. (Not to mention that the adage “revolution is always bloody” is inaccurate, as a huge majority of revolutions in Europe in the last 50 years has been bloodless).

Q: So why aren’t you taking a Molotov cocktail and going to Kremlin?

A: The right to revolt is a right of the people, not a single person. The Ukrainian people are currently trying to realize this right. The Russian people realized it in 1991 but in 2011-2012, they didn’t. It’s possible to discuss at length why this happened and whose fault it was (most likely, part of the fault lies with me and with each of those who likes and reposts), but in the context of this discussion, it’s just a historical fact. My version is that for the most part, there is a difference between the gradual heating of the pot with the frog (it boils) and an instant boiling (it will try to jump out). Putin and the Duma were able to destroy the constitutional order approximately in 10 years; Yanukovych and Verkhovnaya Rada tried to do this in a month. (8)

Q: So, you support chavs with shields with “1488” written on them? (9)

A: Every nation is an extremely complicated conglomerate of very different people and layers. It is exactly the fact that Maidan includes intellectuals from Kiev and ultra-nationalists from Lviv and football fans from Donetsk that proves the popular (and thus legitimate) nature of the Ukrainian protests. All are protecting the constitutional order together, as it should be. They’ll win, conduct elections, and there the nationalists will rack up their 10-15% as with any European country. 

Q: But the protest is divided, the protest has no leader, how can it win?

A: The absence of a clear leader and, despite this (as shown by multiple reports), the excellent, very organized system of self-organization in Maidan is also, for me, proof that one of the sides of the standoff in Kiev is the people. And in a standoff where one of the sides is the people, the people are always right (see above.)

Notes:

1: Original: “description of the ‘material part’”, ‘material part’ meaning ‘common knowledge’, ‘base rules’. In English translation, it didn’t make sense.

2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution

3: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Право_на_сопротивление

4: Middle of second paragraph. Link:http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

5: Line 35. Link: http://www.columbia.edu/~iw6/docs/dec1793.html

6: Article 20. Link: https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf

7: Link: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

8: Duma and Verkhovnaya Rada are the legislative bodies of Russia and Ukraine, respectively.

9: 1488 refers to a Nazi slogan. For the American audience, chavs are a youth subculture known for hooliganism.