Political Violence and Civil Disobedience

Question: Discuss about thePolitical Violence and Civil Disobedience. Answer: Introduction The principle of democratic stability is the thing what prolongs government and guarantee stability is being supported willingly or with the citizens permission rather than reliance on compulsion. There exists a correlation between democratic steadiness and authenticity. As per Schedler, (2014), democratic stability entails that government is a creation of the peoples will, deriving its authority from the consent of the people. This fact suggests that the people, under the scenario that the government is not randomly are willingly supporting the government imposed on them. In a democratically steady society, democracy is stated to be either added or subtracted combined. The authoritarianism becomes inaccessible as democracy is witnessed to be the only game in the town. Non-governmental organizations, groups and individuals employ violence as instruments, pressing frontward their demands. However, violence when it becomes prevalent and uncontrollable becomes obstruction to the political stability and economic progression. Conceptualization wise, electoral violence is synonymously used in the following violence, arson, kidnapping, impulsive or not during and after the election proceedings. Physical threat that is conceded by the individuals or an individual contained by a political system against other groups or individuals having the intention on grounds of injury, decease to persons, targets choices and effects having political implication, tending to amend the behavior of others in the accessible political system arrangement. According to Bosi Malthaner, (2015), political violence can have two dimensions that generally are pre-electoral violence and post-electoral violence. The violence, which is pre-electoral, might arise where electoral laws or necessities are witnessed as favors for a particular individual at the disbursement of other. This might also take place when a particular individual becomes over determined and where he gets the alert that he might miss the electoral front. On the other hand, post-electoral violence may be unprompted. Different individuals feeling gutted and cheated, deprived by the unfairness, engineered this kind of violence because of the electoral process unfairness. This deprivation might be apparent or in real. In many countries the principle of such violence separately from looking for redress through unlawful means in destroying it if it cannot be achieved. In many countries, the political affliction could be investigated from various standpoints theoretically. This takes place because massive amount of symptoms are accountable for the electoral debacle in those countries. This paper takes into account the theory of conflict. At the initial stages of the theory, some proponents like Gluckman, Max Weber and Karl Marx secured their influences on facts that creation of a conflict situation is based on groups or individuals attempting to carry out their determination by trouncing the confrontation of other groups or individuals and their wellbeing in circumstances of resource scarcity (Bosi Malthaner, S2015). Conflict theory search for explaining in a scientifically manner the general outline of society conflict, like how a conflict starts and differs, and the effects it brings on the table. The conflict theory general concerns are the imbalanced distribution of resources that are scarce and supremacy. The theorists who believe in conflict witnesses power as the main characteristic of the society, instead of thinking society as held mutually by combined conformity considering a consistent set of cultural principles. The fundamentals of conflict theory are where power is positioned and the people using the same. Conflict theory analyze society as social battlefield where various individuals and groups challenge one another for obtaining the scarce resources most of which having financial implications influencing the society and the so-called levers of power (Rapoport Weinberg, 2013). The universal supposition is that in the economic system, wealth is regarded as power, having stratified communal system that is primarily distinguished by the members ability for producing wealth. Various scholars have described conflict as an aspect of social communication usually arising from the quest of interest that are divergent, ambitions and goals by groups and individuals in definite environment socially and physically. According to Chaturvedi, (2016), in countries like Nigeria and other African countries, the conflict source is power where politicians are challenging for entering within a system, acting in their self-centeredness and not for the peoples welfare. This arises from the interest divergence, goals, and individual aspirations or from the groups in defined social and corporeal surroundings having contestable admittance to political situations. Countries like Nigeria and Somalia are in a state of overabundance inconsistencies and tensions of a range of magnitude arising out of inappropriateness of individuals and interest of groups in political sequence and sharing of the office perquisites (Valentino, 2014). Political succession creates tension and sharing of office perquisites, the tension gives birth to violence that is politically related. For poor and non-stabilized countries shedding of blood for achieving and attaining political power is a gateway for attaining economic kingdom. There has been existence of political competition for the management of the state where its political power currently depicts a bloody warfare as state holds wealth as a key factor. Conflict theory is important as it enhances the scientific understanding , standing as an operational instrument for further assessing the political violences role and affecting on the democratic solidity of the countries. Elections have become an integral part of the global strategy of peace building that strongly associates peace to the development of democracy. As a tool of insertion and participation, electoral fields can offer a sturdy impetus for resolution of conflicts in environments that have been plugged by wars or societies that are divided. As per Gunaratna, 2017), violence related to elections has the ability to imperil democracy along with peace and stability for the objectives and prejudiced reasons. A constituencys direct participation can be affected along with the campaign candidates, interfering with their behavior towards democracy. Well-entrenched democracies like Japan and France have over the years experienced less political violence than the other non-democracies. This factor holds true for domestic terrorism as well as in-house armed conflicts and civil wars that have terrorized the African soil for many years. The unusual internal conflicts that the democracies practice like that of the Basque conflict, tends to lead to fewer casualties, as democratic governments are characteristically more self-possessed in their usage of violence against the innocent civilians. Democratic governments might find themselves at a disadvantageous position when it comes down to countering rebellion through the means of force, attracting less sadistic opposition. Democratic institutions are in the habit of offering nonviolent channels for determining politically related conflicts and a lawfully constrained governments retort for protesting as often witnessed to be legitimate. In such systems, a minor segment of the population has strong motivation for engaging in political violence. Different forms of political violence are most likely to take place in the political systems where oppression is stated to be incomplete- where opportunities for organizing political violence subsist and unproductive channels of institutions offer the enthusiasm of doing so (Du Toit Manganyi, 2016). Democracies have never really outlawed the political groups except those using the illegitimate approaches and political violence like the Baader-Meinhof group in 1970 Germany. Non-state parties demanding to arm conflict in democratic states like the IRA in Northern Ireland, unreasonably seeking protective autonomy instead of challenging the central government. In some of the cases, opportunistic actors complete autonomy demands with slim objectives like the separatists in Eastern Ukraine. These demands are ingrained in actual accusations arising as favors in decision-making in centralized conditions for the national majority than the domestic one, as case with Sri Lankan conflicts. Internal conflicts generally have a tendency to be more rare low and middle-income democracies than the high-income ones. While countries like Columbia, Sri Lanka and India have qualified long insurgencies, the European industrialized democracies have been spared largely. This susceptibility can be described probably through combining the low-income countries having stronger incentives for using violence for biased goals and attribute deficiencies in preponderance of the population part democratic governance- inclusive of corruption, legal systems that are weaker and unproductive bureaucracies and electoral indiscretion (Barkun, 2015). In political systems, insurgencies and other forms of political violence takes place that blends features of democracy and non-democracy. Conventionally, these systems related to semi-democracy like South Africa and Israel retaining control over the occupied territory in Palestine- having well-functioned establishments from which a broader part of the population have been excluded. On other occasions, in the form of semi-democracy becoming a common affair with leaders and representatives getting elected by, facing the constraints regarding fewer institutions in the office. Many of the African countries witness their presidents ruling with diminutive interference from their judiciaries, agreeing to bigger opportunities for rewarding their opinionated base and enriching themselves. This thing enhances the stake of elections, and the usage of violence in gaining attractive office. The extensive violence surrounding different elections that has being held in Kenya had foundation in such calculations. In avoiding the political violence and civil wars that has rocked many countries were the only criteria for assessing the political systems, despotism might be preferred in case of democracy (Fukuyama, 2014). Most of the Chinese people, for instance, are better off in the present scenario than they were probably forty years ago with economic growth and reduction in poverty reducing the violence risk. Autocratic government, though, is a poor guarantee of diminishing poverty. However, some of the democratic governments do decide strategies that asphyxiate growth, with none having the capability to compete with Chinas great leap forward failure and the crumple of Zimbabwe. Moreover, there is enough evidence that the socio-economic development has the tendency to promote more interactions that are passive between the civilizations, which is supposed to be much stronger when the political institutions of those are supposed to be democratic. Citizens need to develop into more educated bunch of people along with economies showing enough resilience on financial and capital related to humans, demanding for admired authority tending to become more louder. Activists are better placed in putting real pressure on the governments. As per O'brien, (2015), in situations of middle-income dictatorial systems, conflict covering the political system nature is the central motivation factor influencin g political violence. This takes place as suppressive tactics, which once happened to be efficient in hushing the illiterate survival farmers, being less efficient against educated but urban youths who have been unemployed. Even though the autocratic oppression might become effective in the short-run, it leans towards increasing dissatisfaction in the long-run period (Ziemann, 2016). Syria can be the best example of this situation where the atrocious Hama carnage during 1982 and the regime securitys efficiency during the Assad period handling stifling dissatisfaction over the years. The Assad government has been in power for over a long period. The long-term shortcomings of these strategy have been quite evident and it has failed miserably in guaranteeing the security of the Syrian people. Syria has been declared a troubled state, with the terrorist organization, ISIS controlling most of its part. The terrorist organization has been engaged in heavy war with the foreign forces. The democratization process has been violent and for eliminating, the political violence that occurs in the long-run, democratization is enhanced through conditional peace of the zoo that authoritarian states can offer. The present scenario has many such examples where democracies that are established are itself result of violent procedures. In the early 17th century, after the war followed the British magnificent revolution and occurrence of political violence continued for a long time with several protestors getting injured and some even killed in the 1819 massacre of Peterloo. 1790 terror witnessed the beginning of the French democracy with repeated turmoil that went well into the 19th century. Even the Scandinavian regions practiced political violence after the period of democratization. Conflicts that came out of labor conflicts involving the military troops with killing some of the people and injuring a lot shocked Sweden and Norway in the year 1931. In most of the cases though, violence paves way for non-violent politics where violence becomes less somber after the occurrence of few elections. The relationship that exists between the regime type and the political violence is far from being uncomplicated. In the view of the long-run, there is enough evidence that democratic establishments have been more successful in containing violence related to political affairs than the non-democratic ones (Blaug Schwarzmantel, 2016). Thoreau described civil disobedience as a ethical and social duty on the part of the Americans. He described social disobedience as an act of obstinate confrontation, achieved by not abiding by laws that he considered hypocritical. Not paying taxes might also be a case of civil disobedience, whereas refusing to play any significant role in the government proceedings is also an example of the same. However, civil disobedience has always been peaceful where it does not imply upon taking up of arms or taking help of violent means to attain the objectives. In the middle of the nineteenth century, America was swept over by the Mexican-American war. However, as is the case with many, a small minority were not happy with the proceedings. War was seen as a violent act on the weak and neighboring country. A man by the name of Henry David Thoreau thought the war to be very wrong. He declined to pay any sort of taxes to the government of America due to the fact he thought the war was wrong. Though, on the other hand, it was not legal either in not paying taxes which one owes to their government. The authorities of the American government threw Thoreau into jail for the same. Thoreau was happy to be in jail rather than either pay tax or penalty to be out of the jail. He acted in this manner to issue a strong public statement where he stated that he refused to support the war. Ralph Waldo Emerson, the Unitarian Minister and a friend of Thoreau, visited him in the jail. The minister did ask him for explanation on why he was happy being in jail when he had the resource to pay the taxes. Thoreau was brave enough to answer his friend where he said the concern should not be on what he is doing in there, but the apprehension should rather be on what the Utilitarian Minister was doing out there to stop the war. However, after a few days, a relative of Thoreau did pay the taxes on behalf of the man and upon his release from the jail; he wrote the revolutionary essay of Civil Disobedience, which explained every bit of his experience. In that essay he explained on why at times it is important to defy a law when it is unjustified in its nature. In the 1960s America witnessed one of the movements that was discernible by its persistence on civil disobedience. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, was the man who initiated this movement that was peaceful but forceful in its nature. The plan for Dr. Luther King was to make possible and apply as many acts of resistance as achievable but not though any sort of violence. According to Rawls, (2013), Luther King wanted the civil rights activists to aggravate thought, critical assessment of the society and government at large and a fundamental change in the procedure of the government and the society along with treatment of marginalized minorities. Luther King masterminded the civil disobedience power by generating a significant mass of individual people to group together and show solidarity (King Jr, 2013).. Also, other historical figures have engaged themselves in civil disobedience through their acts in a more delicate way. There is evidence of poet Amiri Baraka who made use of his poems as instrument of vigorous, non-violent confrontation. Baraka was taken in as politically fundamental, his poems or poetry continued to be proceeds of civil disobedience. ((Thoreau, 2016) Baraka never advocated violence; instead his sturdy emotion that depicted through his poems became his act of conflict. Mahatma Gandhi, during his days in the jail did came across the essay of civil disobedience by Henry David Thoreau, the 19th century writer from America. Gandhi was happy enough to use the term civil disobedience as his strategy in fighting against the British rule and refusing to oblige with injustice that was being made (Haq, 2016). However, Mahatma Gandhi preferred using the term satyagraha, a Sanskrit word which means devotion to truth. As per Singh, (2016), following his release from the jail, Mahatma Gandhi continued with his remonstration in the registration law by sustaining labor strikes and systematizing non-violent marches, which were massive in number. It was because of this civil disobedience perspective of Mahatma Gandhi that the Boer Government agreed on eliminating the most obnoxious parts of the registration law. According to Mehta, (2014), Mahatma Gandhi was a person who bestowed his entire life on the non-violence principles and civil disobedience. In India, his peaceful leadership and protest rallies encouraged other Indian people to gripe and persevere until independence was achieved in 1947 from the British rule. Thus it can be concluded that change cannot only be achieved through violence as is evident from the present global scenario where terrorist organizations have taken a liking to create a massacre that only take away lives but do not really achieve anything in real. There is simply no purpose or objective in killing thousands of innocent people. However, history has given us many instances where something big has been achieved with proper planning and strategies and without any bloodshed. War and violence can never be the solution in bringing peace and uniforming humanity at the global stage. War and violence only creates massive destruction, loss of lives and financial resources, which cannot be recovered ever. Violence has uprooted the sound economy and stability from many countries, though that is never wanted by anyone. True leaders have found out that being aggressive is not the only thing that leads to achieving things, sometimes one need to be calm and composed to be able to th ink and achieve big without taking up arms. Reference: Barkun, M. (2015). The Foundations of Modern Terrorism: State, Society and the Dynamics of Political Violence by Martin A. Miller (review).Journal for the Study of Radicalism,9(2), 171-173. Blaug, R., Schwarzmantel, J. (Eds.). (2016).Democracy: A reader. Columbia University Press. Bosi, L., Malthaner, S. (2015). Political violence. InThe Oxford Handbook of Social Movements(p. 439). Oxford University Press. Bosi, L., Malthaner, S. (2015). Political violence. InThe Oxford Handbook of Social Movements(p. 439). Oxford University Press. Chaturvedi, S. (2016). Book Review: Neera Chandhoke, Democracy and Revolutionary Politics.Political Studies Review,14(3), 415-416. Clor, H. (2015). Civil Disobedience.The Encyclopedia of Political Thought. Du Toit, A., Manganyi, N. C. (Eds.). (2016).Political violence and the struggle in South Africa. Springer. Fukuyama, F. (2014).Political order and political decay: From the industrial revolution to the globalization of democracy. Macmillan. Gunaratna, R. (2017). International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)Securing the Lion City: Fighting Back. InForward Engagement: RSIS as a Think Tank of International Studies and Security in the Asia-Pacific(pp. 51-55). Haq, I. U. (2016). The Influence of Thoreaus Civil Disobedience on Gandhi.International Journal of Innovative Knowledge Concepts,2(4). King Jr, M. L. (2013).A Time to Break Silence: The Essential Works of Martin Luther King, Jr., for Students(Vol. 10). Beacon Press. Mehta, A. J. (2014).Lessons in Non-violent Civil Disobedience: From the life of MK Gandhi and his Legacy. Arun J. Mehta. O'brien, C. C. (2015).Herod: Reflections on Political Violence. Faber Faber. Rapoport, D. C., Weinberg, L. (2013).The democratic experience and political violence. Routledge. Rawls, J. (2013). The justification of civil disobedience.Arguing about law, 244-253. Schedler, A. (2014). The criminal subversion of Mexican democracy.Journal of Democracy,25(1), 5-18. Singh, K. (2016). The influence of Mahatma Gandhi's Satyagraha on Martin Luther King Junior. Thoreau, H. D. (2016).Civil disobedience. Broadview Press. Valentino, B. A. (2014). Why we kill: The political science of political violence against civilians.Annual Review of Political Science,17, 89-103. Ziemann, B. (2016). Political Violence and Democracy in Western Europe, 19181940.