Uganda might have started as a coup with the intention of changing the status quo but finishes as a large-scale violence between two groups.
A revolution doesn't have to be bloody. But it have to make attempt to change the status quo. You speak about radical changes. Radical changes cannot happen without revolution of some sort, whether political, cultural, industrial, scientific, etc. ----- Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it -Mark Twain
South Africa also does not fit your definition, in that it was not change through force. Although the armed struggle was an aspect of the anti-apartheid movement, it was only an aspect, and the leaders of that struggle were well aware that they would not achieve their goal through force alone. The transition in South Africa was a negotiated one. I understand how one could see it as a revolution, and it would fit some definitions of that term. What I am saying is that South Africans rarely use that term to describe it.
The anti-apartheid struggle lasted for generations. To speak of a "revolution of 1994" would negate the decades of work and struggle that led up to the democratic elections. The ANC was formed in 1912; the National Party took power in South Africa and began institutionalizing its apartheid policies in 1948; the Defiance Campagain began in 1952; the Freedom Charter was adopted in 1955; Chief Albert Lutuli won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1960; the armed struggle began the following year, with the formation of Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation) in 1961. I could go on. The point being, one cannot speak of "the revolution of 1952-1994" without sounding ridiculous.
A luta continua!
