Introduction
Revolution and evolution are concepts that act as triggers in public debate, though their philosophical difference boils down solely to the pace of change. According to Bogusław Wolniewicz, evolution is a steady process, while revolution is violent—it is "a massive change over a short period of time." Understanding this dynamics requires an analysis of the tension between the sacred (myth) and the profane (the technology of power). This article deconstructs these mechanisms, pointing to the necessity of moving from romantic pathos toward an ethics of responsibility and reformist craftsmanship, which alone guarantees the durability and security of state structures.
Models of Transformation: From the Dark Sacred to Pragmatism
In the collective imagination, there are two poles of change. The French model is a social revolution—a Promethean "leap into the unknown," striving for a total reconfiguration of hierarchy and the renewal of human nature. The English model is its opposite: it is moderate, purely political, and codifies what practice has already established. Rudolf Otto described revolution as mysterium tremendum et fascinans—a sacred force that simultaneously terrifies and attracts, promising a ritual purification of the community.
However, Theda Skocpol tempers this romanticism, pointing out that social revolutions are primarily the result of systemic implosion and the collapse of state institutions, rather than just an explosion of ideas. The revolutionary myth builds a false legitimacy for power, drastically raising the cost of dissent—anyone who contests the "renewal" becomes an "enemy of the people." In this view, revolution becomes a machine for manufacturing consent, where the sacred masks a brutal struggle for influence.
The Technology of Power and Piecemeal Engineering
Hippolyte Taine observed that the victorious revolutionary uses lofty slogans as "charlatan's lies" to mask the nature of new coercion. This is the technology of power—a set of promotional and organizational tools that forge myth into the practice of governance. A counterweight to this model is Max Weber's ethics of responsibility, which requires the politician to account for the real consequences of their actions, as opposed to the ethics of conviction, which feeds solely on moral pathos.
In the process of mending the world, Karl Popper advocated for the use of piecemeal social engineering. This is a method of small, measurable, and reversible reforms, resembling the work of a surgeon. It allows one to avoid the trap of utopia, which Stanisław Lem defined as the desire to have social benefits without their attendant misfortunes. Any policy promising only gains is by definition false, as progress always generates specific costs.
Institutions as a Shield for Freedom
The practical effects of a revolutionary approach are visible in education and healthcare. When the rhetoric of emancipation outpaces real resources, the system responds with chaos, a brain drain, and patients being pushed into long lines. Hannah Arendt warned that freedom dies where action is separated from institutional competence. The state's safety mechanism is the system of checks and balances, which prevents power from transforming into a Leviathan.
Though the boredom of procedures and bureaucratic protocol can be tedious, they are precisely what guarantee civil liberty. They force transparency and hold decision-makers accountable for outcomes, not just intentions. Political maturity requires choosing the "horse cure" of reformist craftsmanship over intoxicating mystery. The foundation of ethical politics is the primacy of consequences—ultimately, what matters is the net balance of changes, not the nobility of the slogans written on the banners.
Summary
Politics, freed from the aura of sanctity and spectacle, becomes a craft operating on the living social organism. The craftsman of change has no right to marvel at the fire of revolution if they know the neighbor's roof will burn. Although the flame can be tempting, it is patient evolution, based on institutional safeguards and procedures, that builds lasting justice. Can we accept the boredom of institutions to avoid the costly ruins of utopia? The question of the price of progress remains open, as the bill for political dreams always arrives when we are awake.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF