مرکز منطقه ای اطلاع رسانی علوم و فناوری پژوهش سیاست نظری 2008-5796 21 39 2026 9 23 Revolution in Two Conceptions: Lawson’s Structural-Historical Analysis and Zakaria’s Liberal-Political Discourse انقلاب در دو برداشت: تحلیل ساختاری- تاریخی لاوسن و گفتمان لیبرال- سیاسی زکریا 113 140 fa مهدی زیبائی محمد کامکاری دانشگاه بین المللی امام خمینی (ره) 2025 11 18 Revolution in Two Conceptions: Lawson’s Structural-Historical Analysis and Zakaria’s Liberal-Political Discourse   Mahdi Zibaei<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a> Mohamad Kamkari<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">**</a>   Using a comparative method and operationalized criteria (level of analysis, driving factor, and desired outcome), the present study examines the analytical differences between George Lawson’s structural-historical approach and Fareed Zakaria’s liberal-political approach in interpreting the phenomenon of revolution. Lawson considers revolution to be a structural phenomenon in the recreation of the global order, formed through the three-layered interaction of global, national, and domestic levels, emphasizing the role of international networks and structure-agent conflicts. In contrast, Zakaria analyzes revolution as an instrument for realizing national liberalism, focusing on economic crises, class inequality, and the necessity of consolidating liberal institutions. The findings indicate that Lawson’s framework is effective in explaining the structural conditions surrounding the occurrence of revolution but has weaknesses in analyzing institutional resilience; Zakaria’s framework is useful for examining democratic consolidation but falls short of grasping structural-historical interactions. Consequently, synthesizing these two frameworks can provide a model for understanding the gap between the occurrence of a revolution and the consolidation of its liberal outcomes.   Keywords: Revolution, Lawson, Zakaria, Structural-Historical, Liberal-Political. Introduction As one of the most complex and transformative phenomena in human history, revolution has consistently been at the center of attention for theorists in political science, sociology, and international relations. Accompanied by fundamental, rapid, and often non-linear changes in power structures, political institutions, social relations, and even value and cultural systems, this phenomenon has played a decisive role in shaping the evolutionary trajectories of civilizations. However, in the academic literature, there is no single, consensus-based definition of revolution, and each school of thought highlights different dimensions of it by relying on its own epistemological presuppositions. While this proliferation of approaches has enriched the theoretical landscape of revolution studies, in practice it has generated numerous conceptual and explanatory challenges particularly in distinguishing between why revolutions occur and how their outcomes are consolidated or distorted. In this context, two contemporary thinkers George Lawson (a theorist of revolution and international relations) and Fareed Zakaria (a political analyst and specialist in liberal discourse) each relying on distinct theoretical traditions, have offered specific analytical frameworks for understanding the phenomenon of revolution. Emphasizing the link between structure and agency within the context of global history, Lawson views revolution as an inter-societal and multi-layered phenomenon that takes shape through the interaction of global, national, and domestic levels and recreates the world political order. In contrast, with a pragmatic and institution-centered perspective, Zakaria analyzes revolution as a political instrument for realizing liberalism at the national level, holding that the durability of its outcomes requires robust institutional infrastructures such as the rule of law, judicial independence, and guarantees of individual rights. Despite the significance of both frameworks, no independent comparative study has yet scrutinized the epistemological, methodological, and analytical differences between these two thinkers in explicating the phenomenon of revolution. Aiming to bridge this theoretical gap, the present study seeks to answer the primary question: What are the analytical differences between Lawson’s structural-historical approach and Zakaria’s liberal-political approach in interpreting the phenomenon of revolution? And how can synthesizing these two frameworks offer a more comprehensive model for understanding the gap between the occurrence of revolution and the consolidation of its democratic outcomes?   <h3 style="text-align: left;">Method</h3> In terms of objective, this study is applied-theoretical, and in terms of nature, it is descriptive-analytical, conducted using a comparative method. The comparative method in political science is recognized as an effective tool for identifying similarities, differences, causal patterns, and distinctions in levels of explanation across competing or complementary theories. In this regard, relying on the published writings of the two studied thinkers especially Lawson’s key books and articles such as Anatomies of Revolution, On Revolutions, and The Global Transformation, and Zakaria’s works such as The Age of Revolutions, The Future of Freedom, and From Wealth to Power this study extracts theoretical data and organizes it within a systematic comparative framework. To operationalize the comparison, three key criteria “level of analysis,” “driving factor,” and “desired outcome” have been defined as comparative variables. The level of analysis refers to the distinction between the locus of explanation (global/inter-societal versus national/institutional); the driving factor addresses the causes and initial conditions of revolution; and the desired outcome relates to post-revolutionary consequences and consolidation processes. The research approach is qualitative and grounded in theoretical discourse analysis, wherein the epistemological foundations of each framework are first examined independently, then brought into conceptual confrontation, and ultimately their points of convergence and analytical gaps are drawn out. This method allows the distinctions in their levels of explanation to be accurately identified rather than resorting to reductionism or treating two disparate theories as equivalent, thereby preparing the ground for presenting a synthesized theoretical model.   <h3 style="text-align: left;">Findings</h3> The research findings indicate that although both Lawson’s and Zakaria’s frameworks address the phenomenon of revolution, they operate at different epistemological and analytical levels and are therefore not directly commensurate. In George Lawson’s approach, revolution is conceptualized as a “structure-agent” and “inter-societal” phenomenon. Critiquing both pure structuralism and extreme agency-centrism, Lawson emphasizes the dynamic interaction of these two levels. From his perspective, revolutions are rooted in structural crises of the global system, inter-state rivalries, shifts in the patterns of power hierarchies, and the failure of nation-states in confronting internal and external pressures. Introducing the concept of “causal configurations,” he regards revolution not as a discrete event, but as an ongoing historical process unfolding across three stages: revolutionary situations, revolutionary trajectories, and revolutionary outcomes. Lawson maintains that contemporary revolutions, even when appearing non-violent or electoral, still reflect macro-transformations in the global order and can alter geopolitical balances and international discourses. The strength of his framework lies in explaining why revolutions occur within specific historical contexts and in illustrating transnational networks and local-global interactions; however, in analyzing how institutions are consolidated after victory and the conditions under which a revolution transforms into a durable democracy, his framework lacks sufficient depth. In contrast, Fareed Zakaria analyzes revolution within the framework of liberal-political discourse, centered around “institutional consolidation.” Locating the roots of revolution primarily in economic crises, class inequalities, and the pressures resulting from rapid modernization, Zakaria directs his primary emphasis toward the post-revolutionary stage. In his view, revolutionary victory alone does not guarantee sustainable transformation; rather, its success depends on the existence of prior or concurrent liberal institutions, such as an independent judiciary, a free press, the rule of law, and guarantees of individual rights. Examining cases such as the American Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, and recent transformations in developing countries, Zakaria warns that rapid and superficial democratization without liberal infrastructures leads to the emergence of “illiberal democracies” or the reproduction of authoritarianism. Therefore, his approach is predominantly focused at the national-institutional level, emphasizing post-revolutionary crisis management, the gradual pacing of transformations, and the institutionalization of the rules of the political game. Zakaria’s strength lies in providing clear criteria for measuring the durability of revolutionary outcomes and critiquing naive optimism regarding mere regime change; however, his framework proves incapable of explicating the structural-historical contexts behind the outbreak of revolution, the role of international networks, global geo-economic shifts, and the cross-border interactions of social movements. A comparative evaluation based on the three criteria indicates that: in the “level of analysis,” Lawson emphasizes multiple (global, national, domestic) and inter-societal layers, whereas Zakaria limits the analytical focus to the national and institutional level. In the “driving factor,” Lawson stresses crises in the global balance of power and the structural failure of the nation-state, while Zakaria focuses on the absence of liberal institutions alongside political participation and domestic economic crises. In the “desired outcome,” Lawson views the recreation of the political order at the global level as the ultimate end, whereas Zakaria takes the consolidation of liberal institutions at the national level as the primary objective. Furthermore, both frameworks feature complementary limitations: Lawson is not inattentive to the colonial and structural-historical dimensions yet pays less attention to the mechanisms of institutional consolidation; Zakaria is strong on institution-building but downplays macro-cultural, ideological factors, and geopolitical contexts.   <h3 style="text-align: left;">Conclusion</h3> Through a comparative investigation of these two major theoretical frameworks in revolution studies, this study demonstrated that George Lawson’s structural-historical approach and Fareed Zakaria’s liberal-political discourse, rather than being competitors, represent two complementary yet disparate levels of analysis. The findings suggest that the conceptual gap in the literature on revolution largely stems from the failure to distinguish between the “conditions surrounding the occurrence of revolution” and the “factors consolidating its outcomes.” By focusing on the interaction of structure and agency within the context of global history, Lawson effectively explains why revolutions occur under conditions of structural crises, geopolitical shifts, and transnational networks; however, he lacks adequate analytical tools to answer why some revolutions lead to sustainable liberal democracies while others descend into despotism or institutional chaos. In contrast, Zakaria, by emphasizing the role of liberal institutions, the rule of law, and the gradual management of transitions, provides clear metrics for assessing the durability and consolidation of revolutionary outcomes, yet falls into a nation-centric reductionism regarding the structural-historical roots and international contexts in which revolutions take shape. Consequently, synthesizing these two frameworks is not only viable, but essential for the theoretical renewal of revolution studies in an era of globalization. The analytical model proposed in this study rests on the principle that a complete understanding of the revolutionary cycle requires linking the structural-historical level (based on Lawson’s perspective) with the national-institutional level (based on Zakaria’s perspective). This synthesis enables researchers and policymakers to move beyond the two extremes of “structural determinism” (which disregards the role of institutional factors and human choices) and “nation-centric reductionism” (which ignores global and historical contexts). In practice, this integrated approach demonstrates that revolutions lead to lasting and democratic transformation only when they possess structural foundations and transnational backing, and when, in the post-victory phase, liberal institutional infrastructures are progressively reproduced and consolidated at the national level. Beyond its theoretical contribution, this study carries methodological and policy-oriented implications: methodologically, it underscores the need to avoid false equivalencies between disparate theories and highlights the imperative of analyzing separate levels of explanation.   <h3 style="text-align: left;">References</h3> Abrams, B. (2019) A fifth generation of revolutionary theory is yet to come. Journal of Historical Sociology, 32(4), 378–386. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/johs.12248">https://doi.org/10.1111/johs.12248</a> Allinson, J. (2021) On generations of revolutionary theory: A response. Journal of Historical Sociology, 34(1), 150–160. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/johs.12316">https://doi.org/10.1111/johs.12316</a> Almond, G. A., & Powell, B. B. (1966). Comparative politics: A developmental approach. Little, Brown and Company. Arendt, H. (1963) On revolution. Penguin Books. Basinger, M. (2023) Shahr-e enghelabi: Shahri-shodan va tahavol-e jahani-ye enghelab [The revolutionary city: Urbanization and the global transformation of revolution] (D. Najafi, Trans.). Negah-e Moaser. [in Persian] Bayat, A. (2023) Enghelab-e bedoon-e engelabioon [Revolution without revolutionaries] (A. Sadeghi, Trans.). Shiraze. [in Persian] Beck, C., Lawson, G., Becquens, M., Chenoweth, E., Nepstad, S. E., & Ritter, D. P. (2023) Dar bare-ye enghelab-ha [On revolutions] (M. Zibaei & M. Babaei, Trans.). Negah-e Moaser. [in Persian] Bishara, A. (2020) Dar bare-ye enghelab va zamine-haye an [On revolution and its backgrounds] (K. Heydari, Trans.). Mania Honar. [in Persian] Buzan, B., & Lawson, G. (2016) Explanation, geopolitics, and liberalism: A reply to Luke Cooper. Journal of Historical Sociology, 29(1), 1–14. Buzan, B., & Lawson, G. (2024) Degargooni-ye jahani: Tarikh, madaniyat va takvin-e ravabet-e beynolmelal [Global transformation: History, modernity and the making of international relations] (M. J. Soltani Gishini & M. R. Chitsazian, Trans.). Abrar-e Moaser-e Tehran. [in Persian] Calvert, P. (2008) Enghelab va zedd-e enghelab [Revolution and counter-revolution] (H. Ghane’i, Trans.; 2nd ed.). Ashian. [in Persian] Giddens, A. (1989) Sociology. Polity Press. Hadian, N. (2012) Mafhoom-e enghelab va tahavolat-e jahan-e Arab [The concept of revolution and the developments in the Arab world]. Political Quarterly, 42(4), 205–222. <a href="https://doi.org/10.22059/jpq.2012.35301">https://doi.org/10.22059/jpq.2012.35301</a> [in Persian] Huntington, S. P. (1968) Political order in changing societies. Yale University Press. Huntington, S. P. (2007) Saman-e siasi dar javame-e dast-khosh-e degargooni [Political order in changing societies] (M. Salasi, Trans.; 4th ed.). Elmi. [in Persian] Karami, K. (2010) Forsat-ha va chalesh-haye Amrika dar jahani motefavet [Opportunities and challenges of the US in a different world]. Regional Studies Quarterly, 11(36), 99–121. [in Persian] Kosari, M. (2008) Ravesh-e moghayese-ee [Comparative method]. In A. Manouchehri (Ed.), Rahyaft va ravesh dar olum-e siasi [Approach and method in political science] (pp. 385–404). Samt. [in Persian] Lawson, G. (2021) Kalbod-shekafi-haye jadid-e enghelab [Anatomies of revolution] (M. Zibaei, Trans.). Negah-e Moaser. [in Persian] Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682–693. Manouchehri, A. (Ed.). (2008) Rahyaft va ravesh dar olum-e siasi [Approach and method in political science]. Samt. [in Persian] Marsh, D., & Stoker, G. (Eds.). (2010) Theory and methods in political science. Palgrave Macmillan. Panjalipour, M. (2023) Arzyabi-ye tamayoz-e mian-e nasl-e chaharom va panjom-e nazariye-haye enghelab [Evaluating the distinction between the fourth and fifth generation of revolutionary theories] [Master’s thesis, Shahid Beheshti University]. [in Persian] Robertson, R. (2021) Jung-shenasi-ye karbordi [Applied Jungian psychology] (S. Sargolzaei, Trans.; 11th ed.). Bonyad-e Farhang-e Zendegi. [in Persian] Shojaei, R. A., & Simbar, R. (2023) Vakavi va naghd-e nazariye-ye realisme dolat-mehvar-e Fareed Zakaria [An analysis and critique of Fareed Zakaria’s state-centric realism theory]. Foreign Relations Quarterly, 15(3), 112–134. <a href="https://doi.org/10.22034/fr.2024.411934.1434">https://doi.org/10.22034/fr.2024.411934.1434</a> [in Persian] Skocpol, T. (1979) States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge University Press. Tilly, C. (1978) From mobilization to revolution. Addison-Wesley. Zakaria, F. (2001) Zohoor-e democracy-e gheyr-e liberal [The rise of illiberal democracy] (A. Sadeghi, Trans.). Middle East Studies Quarterly, 8(2), 269–292. [in Persian] Zakaria, F. (2009) Jahan-e pasa-Amrikayi [The post-American world] (A. Azizi, Trans.). Hermes. [in Persian] Zakaria, F. (2011) Ayandeh-ye azadi: Olaviyat-e liberalisme bar democracy [The future of freedom: Illiberal democracy at home and abroad] (A. H. Nowroozi, Trans.). Tarh-e No. [in Persian] Zakaria, F. (2020a) Az servat be ghodrat [From wealth to power] (N. Sheikh-Sarayi et al., Trans.). Roozaneh. [in Persian] Zakaria, F. (2020b) Bazi-ye bozorgan [The great game] (A. Molyani, Trans.; 2nd ed.). Ettela’at. [in Persian] Zakaria, F. (2024) Asr-e enghelab-ha [Age of revolutions] (M. Karbasi, Trans.). Sales. [in Persian]   <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">*</a> Corresponding Author: Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations, Imam Khomeini International University.  <a href="mailto:zibaei@soc.ikiu.ac.ir">zibaei@soc.ikiu.ac.ir</a> https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5600-8552 <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">**</a> Ph.D. Student in Political Science, Imam Khomeini International University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Iran. <a href="mailto:mohamadkamkari@gmail.com">mohamadkamkari@gmail.com</a> https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5130-5582 پژوهش حاضر با روش تطبیقی و معیارهای عملیاتی&zwnj;شده (سطح تحلیل، عامل محرک و نتیجه مطلوب)، تفاوت&zwnj;های تحلیلی رویکرد ساختاری-تاریخی جورج لاوسن و رویکرد لیبرال-سیاسی فرید زکریا را در تفسیر پدیدۀ انقلاب بررسی می&zwnj;کند. لاوسن انقلاب را پدیده&zwnj;ای ساختاری در بازآفرینی نظم جهانی می&zwnj;داند که در تعامل سه&zwnj;لایه جهانی، ملی و داخلی شکل می&zwnj;گیرد و بر نقش شبکه&zwnj;های بین&zwnj;المللی و تعارضات ساختار-کارگزار تأکید دارد. در مقابل، زکریا انقلاب را ابزاری برای تحقق لیبرالیسم ملی تحلیل می&zwnj;کند و بر بحران&zwnj;های اقتصادی، نابرابری طبقاتی و ضرورت تثبیت نهادهای لیبرال تمرکز دارد. یافته&zwnj;ها نشان می&zwnj;دهد چارچوب لاوسن در تبیین زمینه&zwnj;های ساختاری وقوع انقلاب کارآمد است اما در تحلیل استحکام نهادی ضعف دارد؛ چارچوب زکریا برای بررسی تثبیت دموکراتیک مفید است اما در درک تعاملات ساختاری-تاریخی ناتوان است. در نتیجه، تلفیق این دو چارچوب می&zwnj;تواند الگویی برای درک شکاف میان وقوع انقلاب و تحکیم نتایج لیبرال آن فراهم آورد.

http://political.ihss.ac.ir/fa/Article/Download/52127