Why do some protest groups use violence in the context of collective action - Essay Example

? Protest is an expression of by word or actions of objections directed towards specific events, enacted policies or even some form of emerging situations, a group undertakes such acts. Protests are acts that are quite common among different countries across the universe whether developing or developed and they take different varied and forms in the manner that they are undertaken. These forms may range from individual actions to groups actions or even roadside group demonstrations (Dalton 2003, p.53). Furthermore, they can advance into use of physical demos or demonstrations by use of technology such as social media. Protests are normally undertaken to promote particular courses and depending on whether protestors or protest groups face some forms of obstacles or not, protests may be violent or non-violent in nature (Gilcher-Holtey 2008, p.5). Therefore, protests groups can be pronounced any form of group in the society that takes any grounds to publicly demonstrate protests or cause civil disobedience. Such acts are normally intended to take the peaceful and non-violent paths and are normally aimed at acting against any form of official repression (Gilcher-Holtey 2008, p.8). The restrictions that such protests groups may face prompting violence entail restricted government policy, the state of the economy, religious barriers, bureaucratic social structures or even the monopoly that exists in the media. The laws of most of the countries in the world are today aligned in a way that allows for an assembly by groups to express the societal interests (Turner 1981, p.12). In the process of expressing pubic concerns, protests by the protests groups should not at any cost be violent; however, as has been stated in the previous paragraph among the stated reasons, protest groups may at times follow violent means to express their message (Dalton 2003, p.67). The society is normally in a position of handling issues up to some defined limits, therefore, the reasons why violence erupts can be summarized as political and socioeconomic in nature (Turner 1981, p.18). These may be in the form of unequal treatment and total disregard of such groups, this arises in the sense that the groups are voiceless and no relevant body wants to lend them an ear. The nature of poverty in which most people live in the society can cause an eruption into violent protest. Greed as depicted on resources as well as the environmental factors is another cause. Insecurity and scarcity of the group demands coupled with the urgency of such demands (Weldon 2011p.23). Political and institutional factors have a range of inbuilt causes of violent eruptions and these ranges from the weaknesses expressed by the state to a breakdown in social contracts and corruption. Such weaknesses provide grounds upon which such bodies find it difficult to manage the internal and external protests of groups (Weldon 2011, p.44). The institutions as a result are not in any position to peaceful management of group conflicts, provide strong protection measures for the different groups in the society or to the worse, unable to provide for the demand for the groups to participate on fair political platform and express themselves. Forms of political ideologies and ways of handling violence in case they occur can result into violent group protests or not. In mature democracies, manage their protesting groups peacefully through democratic inclusion as opposed to autocratic governments who apply force (Gilcher-Holtey 2008, p.4). Violent protests in a given society like in UK could be fuelled by the aforementioned factor. This is so because of the strength possessed by propagators of violence and their ability to retaliate. Violent protests in this platform results mainly from the group fears for the future, the weaknesses of the state and repress violence creating responses by the marginalized groups among other stakeholders (Zamorano 1999,p.234). It is evident that most of the protests that have become violent in Europe have been because of power struggles and exclusion. This has been attributed by reduced access of some groups of the state structures and resources creating divisions among the social lines (Rootes 2007, p.17). The excluded leaders have had to mobilize the excluded groups and cause protests, which start peacefully but erupt into violence in the efforts to fight for the democratic rights of the marginalized (Goodwin and Jasper 2009a p.9). This can only be avoided through inclusive elite bargains with the objectives of cementing social fragmentations, which have been the major causes of such group protests. It has to be realized that leadership as portrayed by post liberation leaders is a thing in the past and does not have any chance in the modern society. Furthermore, if the social contract fails, this is another cause of violence as the rules that are likely to govern the state and the society are likely no more (Weldon 2011, p.88). The resource distribution, rights and responsibilities in an organized society are then infringed upon as a result hence groups within the society of whatever sector does not have an option but to resort to violence (Kelly 2005, p.16). Despite the efforts made by most European organizations for incorporation, transformation and democratization to avoid violent eruptions, vices such as corruption have still been reported in some of the institutions. Corruption has an impact of depriving a majority of their rightful economic resources and it is due to the greed by a few individuals (Goodwin and Jasper 2009a, p.7). Such acts by such individuals who happen to be in power positions; leaves the rest of the groups without any other option but protests. The protests are normally not intended to result into violence but due to repressions by the same regimes, they end up being even more violent. Corruption is an enormous cause because it negates the trust that the public has had on the government, prevents both domestic and foreign investments, results into inequality in wealth while at the same time increasing socio economic injustice around the society (Rootes 2007, p.8). Such normally results into a build-up of pressure within the social groups in the society with the ultimate end resulting into violence emanating from such societal groups. Violence emanating from corruption is two ways; as the ruling groups engages in violence trying to protect their interest, the marginalized through the protest groups conglomerate to fight violently for a right in an unjust society (Zamorano 1999, p.28). There can normally arise a situation of individuality that encompasses a group activity in the manner to provoke a group to assist in the fight for the rights of a few (Kelly 2005,p.6).In such cases, protest groups find it hard to get what is rightly theirs due to inequality in treatment, outright exclusion and extreme marginalization. In such a case the protest groups are totally left in the cold not anywhere closer to the decision making table hence non is able to listen to them nor are they given chance to explain themselves and their grievances (Friedan 1997,p.14). The nature of inequality has no play in this case but the extent in which case and integration of the inequality in terms of culture, ethnic or religion hence violent protests. This is evident most specifically in events when such inequalities, exclusions and marginalization take the interactive approach in their engagements (Goodwin and Jasper 2009b, p.6). Groups have a stronger collective engagement and bonding forces and in the event that a group realizes that either they are alienated socially or culturally, feelings of rejections compound and makes the groups want to react through violence, as other mechanisms at work may not work in such instances (Zamorano 1999 p.13). The animosity and resentments built based on such makes the protest groups come together in an agenda to fight violently for what they may consider theirs. This is because combined efforts are a sure way of achievement of common goals. It is worth mentioning again that protest groups have the interest of the society at heart and one of their mandates is to fight for the rights of different groups in the society due to injustices resulting from exclusion from the societal activities (Goodwin and Jasper 2009b, p.8). Poverty is one of such causes; the poor in the society have problems, which if not handled well can result into a situation where violence in the society is not an option. Poverty ensures violent protests when it comes into association with the other perceived forms of injustices. Extreme poverty is one of the motivations towards the formation of the protest groups; this is because of the idleness and lack of positive engagements unlike the non-violent organized protesters (Hart 1997, p.12). The fight by protesting groups in Europe is not due to poverty though but due to discrimination in the allocation of the state resources and this is also fuelled by the environmental factors (Hart 1997, p.12). So many forms of initiatives have been formulated in Europe most of which are quite contemporary such as the effects of globalization and industrialization on the environment. Some protests have also been reported that are geared to allow for more media freedom and still we have protests to help in legislation (Kelly 2005, p.4). Division in the society along socioeconomic and political lines enables the emergence of strong groupings which informs the decision of some individuals in the society to try and make stronger protest groups to further their individual interests for continues propagation of their beliefs, ideologies and solve their long harboured grievances. In this context, even protests, which start due to social and political factors, end up being fuelled by the economic bit due to economic constraints (Rootes 2007, p.7). The society is always complicated as it is composed of different groups living together with different traits. It is not therefore something strange to find protests across the country throughout the year every day a week. This is because it the very nature of human beings to stand up for the rights of others and themselves. Most of the protests and protestors are due to economic wars due to the frustrations of unemployment, poor remunerations and inability to afford the basic life expenses. To prevent violent protest it is important that such life issues be given the due consideration they need and deserve and ensuring they are dealt with conclusively. This does not though mean that the constitution supports violent protests, and it is not different whether developing or developed country (Shupe and Misztal 1998, p.123). The constitutions in most of these countries gives the citizens and groups a right to gather, picket and protests and the same constitution stresses on the act that such associations and protests must remain orderly and peaceful (Friedan 1997,p.13). This is so for the prosperity and development of the nations as individual citizens exploit their daily endeavours. In countries upon which protests have taken place or are looming, the first and surest measure is to understand the protesters and what they have to say in order to establish the causes of the protests. The developed countries have experienced protests due to economic imbalance as the one percent of the population controlling a bigger share of the wealth of the countries (Shupe and Misztal 1998, p.144). Without giving an ear to the gang protesters, it will be hard to prevent them and what will result is as witnessed in the most serious UK, riots that caused massive damage with no one to shoulder the blames. For riots to emerge through violent protests, the sure meaning would be that the individuals have tried to seek almost all of the possible avenues to address their massive grievances without any avenue or way through (Prasad, 2011). Most of the violence recorded across Europe were due to among the factors discussed, the unfair treatment between stakeholders of the same class. The protesters therefore find protesting the better way to get justice like those related to senseless killings. Others also engage in riots and violent protests to help in correcting the weaknesses in the government and its weak institutions (Newburn, 2011). The second intervention would be for the government of these countries to formulate ways of ensuring that the all the government structures are cleared of the bureaucratic structures and that there is a lot of fairness in the treatment accorded to individual with regards to the public resources (Tarrow 1998, p. 16). The government and the citizens need to be palatable to one another and it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that forums are established to bring the citizens and the state together so that they understand one another (Milne, n.d). The states have to find way of ensuring that the marginalized groups are incorporated and empowered. Such groups are mainly composed of the youth and women who suffer most during such violent protests. This is as opposed to the approach given by the state that it they are gang related activities. Lastly, the governments have to strengthen the media, as they are the mirror of the society in unmasking any controversy (Topping, et al, 2011). References Dalton, RJ, 2003, Citizens, protest, and democracy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Friedan, B, 1997, The problem that has no name. In B. Friedan. The feminine mystique. New York: W.W. Norton, pp. 57-78. Gilcher-Holtey, I, 2008, France. In M. Klimke and J. Scharloth (eds.) 1968 in Europe: a history of protests and activism 1956-77. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 111-124. Goodwin, J, & Jasper, JM, 2009a, Introduction. In J. Goodwin & J.M. Jasper. (eds.) The social movements’ reader: cases and concepts. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 313-315. Goodwin, J, and Jasper, JM, 2009b, Editors’ introduction and Introduction. In J. Goodwin and J.M. Jasper (eds.) The social movements reader: cases and concepts. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 3-7; 11-14. Hart, L, 1997, In defence of radical direct action. In J. Purkis and J. Bowen (eds.) Twenty-first century anarchism: unorthodox ideas for a new millennium. London: Cassell, pp 41-59. Kelly, J, 2005, Social movement theory and union revitalization in Britain. In S. Fernie and D. Metcalf (eds.) Trade unions: resurgence or demise? London: Routledge, pp 62-82. Milne, S. 2011.The Occupy movement has lit a fire for real change. The Guardian, [Online] Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/19/occupy-movement-fire-for-change[Accessed on May 20, 2013] Newburn, T. et al. 2011. David Cameron, the Queen and the rioters' sense of injustice. The Guardian. [Online] Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/05/cameron-queen-injustice-english-rioters [Accessed on May 20, 2013] Prasad, R. 2011. English riots were 'a sort of revenge' against the police The Guardian. [Online] Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/05/riots-revenge-against-police[Accessed on May 20, 2013] Rootes, C, 2007, The transformation of environmental activism: an introduction, In C. Rootes (ed.) Environmental protest in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 1-19. Shupe, A. & Misztal, B, 1998, Religion, Mobilization, and Social Action, Westport, CT: Praeger. Tarrow, S, 1998, Chapter 7 – Framing contention. In S.G. Tarrow. Power in movement: social movements and contentious politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 106-122. Topping, A. et al. 2011. The four-day truce: gangs suspended hostilities during English riots The Guardian. [Online] Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/06/gang-truce-english-riots[Accessed on May 20, 2013] Turner, R, 1981, Collective Behavior and Resource Mobilization as Approaches to Social Movements, Research in Social Movements, Conflict, and Change, 4, 1-24. Weldon, SL, 2011, When protest makes policy: how social movements represent disadvantaged group, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Zamorano Farias, R, 1999, Dilemas politicos sobre los movimientos sociales. Revista Mexicana de Sociologia, 61, 201-232. Read More