Summary

In order to avoid revolution, a government essentially has two options. Great Britain and Prussia demonstrated these two options in the later half of the 19^th century, when the governmental systems of both countries were facing opposition from their respective liberal parties. A government must act as Great Britain did (with the Reform Bill of 1867) and compromise with the discontented party, or it can act as Prussia did (with the influence of Bismarck) and unite the country with a common cause, such as nationalism, in order to almost distract the opposing party. Clearly, between these two options (that of compromise and that of “distracting” the opposing party), the former will result in an overall more contented country and will consequently have longer-lasting peace. The act of compromise demonstrates the humbleness of a government and it’s willingness to adhere to the complaints of the people in order to better the state of the country as a whole. To contrast, the use of nationalism to momentarily unite a country only stalls the threat of revolution and allows a ruler (such as Bismarck) to focus on exterior gains (such as Germany) instead of interior problems. Creating a sense of nationalism within a country does not achieve anything aside from temporarily uniting that country; the problems that existed before the presence of that nationalism will still exist after that sense of nationalism fades away. Consequently, if a government truly wants to avoid revolution (and not just stall the threat of a revolution), it only really has one option: to put aside its ego and mold itself to fit the needs of its people.