Rousseau's Influence Against The Government

Over the years, there have been many bloody revolutions against governments in the world, whether it be in the Middle East today or Bosnia in the 1980’s. These so called “liberations” include many unnecessary civilian casualties and often leave a nation or peoples in a worse state than before. As Mahatma Gandhi once said, "A nonviolent revolution is not a programme of 'seizure of power' but it is a programme of transformation of relationships, ending in a peaceful transfer of power." Transfer of power lessens the humiliation of the opponent. This makes the peace more permanent and strong to withstand the test of time. All of this reinforces the point that while revolutions and defiance against the government is quite okay if you do it peacefully,
They should be able to control the government without resorting to violence and force. This also means a bloody revolution is the unnecessary death of multiple citizens of the same land. This is relayed by Thoreau in “Civil Disobedience” when he writes, “The government itself...which the people have chosen to execute their will…”(Thoreau). What Thoreau is trying to get across is similar to the point being made in “The Social Contract”, written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau essentially believes that there is a contract between the people and government that states the people give up certain rights to the government in exchange for stability and protection. Both of these men reinforce the idea that mankind invented the concept of government and, therefore, should be able to alter it as they see fit without any violent
This being the case, what is the point in not standing up against the government in cordial protest. This was proven in Montgomery, Alabama in the 50’s at the height of American racism. In a bus in 1955, a black woman, whose name was Rosa Parks, refused the give her seat at the front of the bus up to a white man. This was illegal at the time and one could get punished harshly, officially or off the books. However, this small act of peaceful defiance sparked the national downfall of segregation (Dove). This protest sparked a string of many others which had minimal deaths or injuries. Not only was it effective, the changes caused by it were everlasting and are still in effect today. This is unlike a prime example of a bloody revolt in France, 1789. This radical barbarous conflict caused hundreds of thousands of casualties and over ten years of social and lethal turbulence in France. Even after these hard years the “solution” that finally arrived was in the form of a tyrannical dictator who had to eventually be exiled in the Mediterranean. These examples further the notion that nonviolent revolting is the most clean and effective. This is important to the people, who all collectively want is food and stability. A successful rebellion also the most morally accepted and least likely to create extremists for either side of the