Sultany on Revolution in the Cambridge Handbook of Constitutional Theory @NimerSultany @CambridgeUP @rpbellamy1

Nimer Sultany, University of London, School of Oriental & African Studies, School of Law, is publishing 'Revolution', in The Cambridge Handbook of Constitutional Theory (Richard Bellamy and Jeff King – eds, Cambridge University Press) (forthcoming).

This chapter argues that an adequate assessment of revolutions (and the role of law in revolutions) is often stymied by historical exclusions and theoretical myopia. Historical exclusions centralise certain experiences and present sanitized and one-sided narratives of the revolutionary experiences they centralise, especially with respect to violence, slavery, and colonialism. On the basis of such ideological uses of history, theoretical accounts paper over these social and political realities in order to legitimate particular revolutionary constitutions and to elevate them to the status of a paradigm or ideal type. This paradigm serves as the yardstick by which other experiences are assessed. The main feature of this paradigm is that it postulates a distinction between political and social revolutions. It presents the American Revolution of 1776 as an exemplar for the political revolution that concerns itself with the establishment of government under law. In contrast, the French Revolution of 1789 is presented as an exemplar for the social revolution that also seeks to tackle social injustice. The deficiency of this paradigm construction is not merely methodological, but also substantive and normative. It reduces the plurality of the revolutionary phenomena despite the conceptual contestability of the revolution, whether in respect to its applicability to particular realities or the emphasis on continuity with, or rupture from, the extant order. It ignores the revolution’s dialectical nature by separating its assessment from the counter-revolution and thus exaggerates the role of violence in revolutions it disfavours, whereas it obscures the role of violence, slavery, and colonialism in the revolutions it favours. Finally, it presents a certain type of revolutionary constitutions (that are “political” not “social”) as ones that legitimate the polity despite the contestability of the revolutions that generated them, and notwithstanding the incoherence and instability of these constitutions. Moreover, this paradigm elevates counter-majoritarian revolutionary constitutions to be a product of an exceptional act of founding that need not be repeated (or radically revised) despite the constitutional order’s deficiencies, instability, and injustices.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.