Change, in a historical sense, can be described as the actions of certain groups to alter political dynamics in a region due to a profound need to enact new policies. Change often arises predictably, as a result of accumulating issues that eventually necessitate a significant shift. For example, the Scottish National Party (SNP) in the United Kingdom was not a novel idea, but rather the culmination of multiple issues concerning Scotland and Scottish independence, which eventually coalesced into its own political entity.
Change can also be unexpected, which I categorise into two types: Natural Unexpected Change and Unnatural Unexpected Change. Natural unexpected change is the kind that might occur, but we cannot be sure until it happens. There is no set timeline for it; we just know it will happen eventually. For instance, Rishi Sunak calling the British General Election. While it was known that Sunak would eventually call a general election, the timing was uncertain. Many anticipated it would happen in August, so when he called it in June, it took many by surprise. Similarly, Joe Biden's withdrawal from the 2024 Presidential Election >, though likely, occurred without a definitive timeline, making it a significant event when it happened.
Then there are truly unexpected events, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. No one knew that the Soviets were placing nuclear warheads in Cuba, and their discovery nearly triggered a war.
Change is a constant in our lives, influencing everything from scientific advancements to new economic theories and businesses disrupting the status quo. It also drives societal shifts, such as increased acceptance of marginalised groups. Change is often propelled by specific groups challenging how they are governed. A prominent example is France, where the Ancien Régime's inability to represent a growing middle class led to the French Revolution. Change is crucial because it can reshape thinking for centuries. Gradual change, in particular, tends to have lasting effects. For example, following the fall of Nazi Germany, a poll revealed that some Germans preferred the previous authoritarian regime—not out of hatred or support for autocracy, but because the changes they had experienced before seemed better than the current state.
While change itself may not be inherently historical, its methods often are. The invention of the printing press, for example, broke the monopoly of a literate elite over information, leading to widespread criticism of governments and eventually inspiring change. It enabled the global spread of new ideas, shaping the developmental theories we recognise today. The Industrial Revolution transformed industry and manufacturing, prompting demands for political reforms, such as the Reform Act of 1832 in Britain and the Zollverein in Germany, which eventually facilitated unification. Similarly, the radio accelerated the dissemination of ideas, fostering greater connectivity among people.
What might change look like today? It’s hard to predict, but the internet has rapidly globalised communication and increased English language adoption worldwide. Combining the functions of the printing press and the radio, the internet fosters continuous invention and reinvention of political and economic theories. However, change can fail when imposed against the will of the people or executed too hastily, as seen in Hungary in 1956. Governments installed by external forces and used to oppress their citizens are unsustainable, as people desire autonomy. This also explains the failure of French Revolutions before Napoleon—they were short-lived, lacked popular support, and were often poorly executed.
Change succeeds when it works within the existing system and is familiar and appealing to the majority, especially those in power. Successful change is realistic, goal-oriented, and accountable to the people who enable it.
The most effective way to enact change is through comprehensive, democratic, and far-reaching methods that allow people to adapt to the change while recognising its distinctiveness. This approach is evident in companies that improve their products incrementally rather than completely reinventing them. Reinvention can be costly and risks alienating users, leaving only the most dedicated supporters. While I am not suggesting governments should function like corporations, deliberate and democratic change tends to have a more lasting impact.