Don't Just Cry Revolution? What Revolution?

It is possible to lead and succeed with a popular revolt, Jerry Rawlings did it. You only need circumstances of mass hardship to converge and take advantage of it.

What will definitely not succeed is the expected outcome of progressive change.

Because a revolution that is not ideologically grounded, is nothing more than a mass of people lashing out, and trading in a bunch of fat looters for hungry ones.

Agree with the idea of communism or not, the soviets revolutionaries used it turn thier third world country into a developed country in just 30 years. The Chinese revolutionaries have pulled out, more people from poverty in a few decades than whole continents have done in centuries.

After the second world war, the wave of mass protests for social democratic values which swept the Scandinavian countries have made tiny countries like Denmark, economic wonders of the world.

You can't sell a toothpick to Cuba because of the American sanctions, but in the midst of this global pandemic, we see their medical professionals dropping into hot-spots all over the world, including Europe. They have one of the best healthcare in the world today, and their children don't need loans to get an education.

On the other hand, history is also littered with popular uprisings like we saw in the so called Arab Spring. Lybia is now a backwater country run by tribal gangs and smugglers. Egypt is more autocratic today than before the revolution. Syria is in flames because the Obama led American government, armed terrorist, thinking they were Arab spring revolutionaries. Almost 40years after Jerry Rawlings and his gang, and Ghana is worse off in many ways.

A revolution that is not founded on ideas, is like burning forests to catch rats for dinner.

This is why I find the calls for ending the duopoly of NDC-NPP politics, for a new third force a complete joke. A joke not because it may not succeed, a joke because in our history, we have set aside whole systems before. And yet here we are.

Progress is the end goal, change should be a means, not an end. Otherwise what is the point. And progress is the product of clearly defined systemic ideas.

So tell me what systemic changes we should make. And perhaps, how we should make it. Tell me which third force is preaching those nuanced systemic changes, or maybe how we should go about building such a third force.

But don't tell me to change the existing duopoly. Change it for WHAT. The WHAT is more important.

And the WHAT requires careful and objective reasoning about problems and solutions. That is more difficult to do, so I can understand why people retire at venting anger and simply calling for change.

It has succeeded before, it may succeed, but the outcome will not be in doubt. Failure!

So don't just preach revolution, WHAT revolution is more important.