A theory of elite revolutions

Abstract

T his paper attempts to conceptualize a unique type of political revolutionthe elite revolution-through historical study of the Meiji Restoration (1868) in Japan and the Ataturk Revolution in Turkey. These two revolutions, which marked the overthrow of a traditional regime in violent civil war, abolished the economic and social base of the old order, and created a modern nation-state committed to rapid industrialization, were unusual in two respects: (1) the revolutionary leaders were themselves members of the ruling stratum, holding high status and office in the old regime; and (2) revolutionary conflict and change were contained primarily within elite institutions and did not involve mass participation. The parameters and implications of such elite revolutions will be specified through analysis of: (1) the gen.-sis of revolutionaries in Japan and Turkey; (2) the tactics and organization they developed to overthrow the government and initiate revolutionary change; and (3) the political, economic, and social results of their revolutions.Although the pattern of elite revolution elucidated here cannot be exactly duplicated today, it is relevant to study of the prospects for anti-imperialist revolutions from above in industrializing countries, particularly in the Middle East and Latin America. Moreover, study of this unusual type of revolutionary action provides insights into more universal problems of revolutionary change. Specifically: (1) Contrary to the social theories of Weber, Michels, and others, an analysi. of elite revolutions indicates that under certain conditions bureaucrats may become revolutionaries, and that a social stratum of officeholders is more conducive to the genesis of revolutionaries than is a social class with vested interests in private property. (2) Study of the tactics used by elite revolutionaries indicates organizational methods that permi t a revolutionary takeover of power and the initiation of fundamental social change while minimizing the amount of violence, terror, and social upheaval invoh·ed. (3) Analysis of the change generated by elite revolution indicates some of the costs of limited mass involvement in revolutionary action.

How can the Japanese anomaly be explained? A review essay of Atul Kohli'sImperialism and the Developing World- Atul Kohli,Imperialism and the Developing World: How Britain and the United States Shaped the Global Periphery, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.

“…Japanese nationalism, instead, took the form of embracing the authority of the Emperor that had been politically marginalized by the Shogunate. Because the replacement of the Shogunate by the Imperial House was a shift from one dynastic regime to another, the Meiji Restoration is often not counted as a 'social revolution' (Skocpol, 1979) but is seen as an 'elite revolution' (Trimberger, 1972). In this sense, post-1868 Japan was also different from other empires in Asia such as the Qing Dynasty.…”

The Political Economy of Revolution and Institutional Change: the Elite and Mass Revolutions

“…The former is compatible with a limited confrontation and the latter with a total war. Trimberger (1972Trimberger ( , 1977Trimberger ( , 1978 conceptualized the concept of 'elite revolutions' with regard to Meiji Restoration ( 1868) in Japan and the Ataturk Revolution (1919-23) in Turkey. These two revolutions, which marked the overthrow of a traditional regime in violent civil war, abolished the economic and social base of the old order, and created a modern nation-state committed to rapid industrialization, were unusual in two respects: (1) the revolutionary leaders were themselves members of the ruling stratum, holding high status and office in the old regime; and…”

“…There is not such a thing as 'revolution' proper; we had 'revolutions'. Political scientists had distinguished two general types of revolution: an 'elite' revolution from above (Trimberger, 1972), and a revolution 'from below' (Skocpol, 1979). A salient illustration of the latter is the French Revolution of 1789.…”

Making reform and stability compatible with each other: elite redeployment in Meiji Japan

“…To resolve this Japan puzzle, we need to incorporate the literature written by historians well. There are inspiring works on the Meiji Restoration by early-generation historians such as Thomas Smith, William Beasley, Henry Rosovsky, Harry Harootunian, and Bernard Silberman, which were cited by early political economy comparativists such as Reinhard Bendix (1964), Barrington Moore (1966), and Ellen Trimberger (1972, 1978). This article, however, will also refer to more updated recent works by Japanese historians, most of which are available only in the Japanese language.…”

“…Thus, the nature of the revolution was somewhat unique. The Meiji Restoration is often described as an ‘aristocratic revolution’ (Smith, 1960), an ‘elite revolution’ (Trimberger, 1972), or a ‘revolution from above’ (Trimberger, 1978) because it is different from ‘social revolution’, which accompanies the participation of the bourgeoisie and/or the masses in the overthrow of the ancien régime (Skocpol, 1979), while it is still revolutionary in light of the resultant fall of the previous elite class. To be terminologically more precise, it was a revolution by peripheral elites – some lower-class samurais from some local states – whose political power had been on the rise but was still facing major constraints within the existing hierarchical order.…”