Menu
Menu
Horizontal vs Vertical Change
Understanding the true meaning of change with revolts and revolutions. If horizontal change merely reshuffles elite power, vertical change seeks social justice.
Prudence demands that we properly evaluate the motives, manifestos, and machinations of those political leaders who seek our consent, contribution, and cash for their plans for change.
By Asim Imdad Ali | Published December 1st
On the evening of 14 July 1789, King Louis XVI of France heard the news of the storming of the Bastille on his return from hunting. Notoriously, he asked, “Is this a revolt?” to which the Duc de Lô Rochefoucauld replied, “No, Sire – it is a revolution.” [Furtado: Revolutions].
Though today, people may not lose their heads like poor Louis XVI by confusing one with the other, we still need to understand the difference between revolts and revolutions. Prudence demands that we properly evaluate the motives, manifestos, and machinations of those political leaders who seek our consent, contribution, and cash for their plans for change. Hence, understanding the difference between the two is necessary. It is, however, easy to discern the difference between these two if we look at the plans for change from a straightforward lens: Is it a plan for horizontal or vertical change.
Revolts are typical examples of horizontal changes. Different elite factions squabble over who gets to steer the ship without effectually changing its course. During revolts, new elite cliques seek a more significant share of power. Their rallying cry is not about devolving powers to the hoi polloi or social justice for the masses but fair and fast power transfer to a different elite faction!
The noisy elite who revolts simply want some seats at the table, not to upend the dining room; they want to take part in the system instead of bringing it down. Revolts are the game of musical chairs, an elite reshuffle. It is about a change of guards who claim that they are needed for preservation, survival, and restoration of the existing system; hence, during revolts, we typically hear about the infusion of fresh blood to make the system run more efficiently.
On the other hand, Revolutions tend to demand and deliver vertical changes. The objective of revolutionary people is not inclusion but the complete demolition of the ancien regime and its replacement by a more equitable and, if possible, more equal form of polity. The revolutionaries do not want to enter the elite club but padlock it and create alternative and new governance models: they demand and deliver a de novo beginning. Revolution is about the whole company going bankrupt; it is replaced with a new system, outlook, vision, and management. It is not about kickstarting the old corporation with fresh blood; it is about discarding the system and adopting new structures. The distinguishing feature of a revolution is the emergence of brand-new faces, most of whom have never been in the capital, not to talk of the power corridors.
From the days of Mohanjo Daro, can we cite a single revolution or vertical change in our history when the hoi polloi took real power and transferred it to the masses? Probably none. Regarding revolts or horizontal change, we can recall and recount dozens of them, including the most egregious case of Suri revolting against Humayun. The legacy of that revolt by a faction of the elite (military commanders) against another clique of the elite (dynastic or rulers) continues to linger and bedevil us today. Despite all their grandiloquent claims and exciting rhetoric of fundamental change and transformative reforms, our revolting commanders sought horizontal change: they just wanted to rearrange the chairs on the Titanic deck.
Most political noise we hear today concerns horizontal change—elite factions clamoring for and fighting their way into the power corridors. There is an eerie silence about calls for vertical change. It is easy to decipher why hardly anyone wants to rock the boat and why there is little movement for vertical reforms. There is always the fear of being isolated and targeted by the integrated world economy. There is also the lingering sour aftertaste of past attempts at vertical change: in the end, the walls behind which such transformative change was supposed to happen came tumbling down.
There is hardly an alternative and a new blueprint for revolutionary change that people could rally around: everywhere, the same consensus holds. There is such a dearth of alternative governance models that experimenting with new systems seems risky and rewardless. All the modern political manifestos are more of a mirage than a map of the alternative system of governance and growth. Lastly, the sincere leadership that could inspire the current generation to such an extent that they are willing to sacrifice their lives and liberties for the delayed gratification of the well-being of future generations is missing in our times.
Real vertical change is always complex and costly, demanding detailed planning, enormous sacrifice, and a delayed gratification mindset. Horizontal change is far simpler and cheaper and can promise, though rarely deliver, instant gratification. It can mystify and indulge us with a nebulous feeling of movement without any transformative moves toward social justice and participatory governance. No wonder there is an asymmetry in the number of revolts and revolutions.
So, when next we hear revolution and revolt used interchangeably, remember the difference. Without a fundamental vertical transformation, the political noise is usually just a polite scuffle for more seat in the same old elite power club.
Have you ever met a revolutionary off late? The ones we keep hearing about are just revolting people (sometimes, in both senses of the term)! So next time someone waves a “revolutionary” banner, look closely. Chances are, it is not a blueprint for a bright sunlit future but a recycled pamphlet printed with with bright new ink.
Disclamer: The views and opinions expressed in Margalla Tribune are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the magazine, its editorial team, or its publishers. The content provided in Margalla Tribune is for informational purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for professional advice. The magazine, its editorial team, and its publishers will not be liable for any losses, damages, or claims arising from the use or reliance on the information contained in this publication. If you wish to reproduce or share any content from Margalla Tribune, please ensure proper credit is given to the magazine. Margalla Tribune reserves the right to make changes to the content, format, and availability of the publication at any time without prior notice.