Violence and Radical Political Transformation - Research Paper Example

Violence and Radical Political Transformation Introduction Violence is the intentional use of physical force to either threaten of act against oneself, another individual, a group or an entire community. The results of violent actions are more likely to be physical harm or injury, death, maldevelopment and sometimes deprivation. This research paper looks at the role of violence in political transformations as stipulated by Franz Fanon and Georges Sorel. It also finds out if violence is really a necessary part of any political transformation and finally tackles how this violence should be articulated as a necessary part of a political transformation. Franz Fanon Fanon did not like colonization and stated that the only way to do away with colonialism and its effects was through the use of violence. It had come in two ways, direct and indirect colonization and both had extreme effects on the colonized (Oday, 1997, p3). It had separated the populations and stratified it into classes and each class had a specific role to play. According to Fanon, therefore, violence was needed to get rid of these negative effects that resulted from colonization (Fanon, 1963, p99). Fanon had several notions of violence. Colonization was characterized by these philosophies of violence and it was only violence that could be used to counter these concepts. According to Fanon, colonization was manifested by the use of force, physical and psychological injury, aggression, coercion and militancy. It was, therefore, evident that to defeat colonization, violent strategies had to be employed as a reaction to the already existing violent colonization. In order to bring political transformation, violence had to be put to practice (Anderson, 2009, p102). There are two sense of decolonization recognized by Fanon in his work. He identifies the physical act or path taken by the natives to free their territory from the external colonial control, which is a form of resistance and rebellion that will not only require dedication, but also violence to counter the strong existing external control (Carrasco, 1999, p79). The second area that fanon thinks the use of violence is the psychological act of freeing the consciousness of the natives from all the alienations and injustices caused by colonization. The whole process of decolonization requires violence and Fanon generally refers to the entire process as a violent phenomenon (Della, 2006, p46). It is apparent that violence has to be used to achieve political transformation and free oneself from all sorts of alienation brought about by colonization. Decolonization leads to the substitutions of the once seen as supernatural beings and replacing them with new men, bringing humanity and freeing the natives from the colonial alienation. This revolution course cannot be reached in the absence of violence (Fanon, 1963, p125). Fanon classifies the role of violence as part of a political transformation and specifies that it played the following roles. Violence was use to liberate the natives from the colonial chains. The colonizers had abused the right of the natives and mishandled them, in order to restore humanity to the natives; violence was the tool to use. The second role played by violence was in response to the violence perpetrated by the colonizer. The colonial powers had employed aggressive and coercive means of handling the natives and the only option was to react violently (King, 2010, p85). In order to bring political transformation, all the colonial structures had to be destroyed. This is because violence was the tool for this job, as it would ensure that the political, social and economic structures that were set up by the colonizer were completely shattered. Solidarity is key to political transformation; natives with a common cause will be united by their desires to liberate themselves from colonization and will, therefore, take violent risks against the strong colonial power in order to free themselves. Fanon was successful in detailing the role violence should play in political transformations and it is evident that violence is necessary (Fanon, 1963, p129). Georges Sorel Georges Sorel in his book, “the reflection on violence,” sees as the only means of affecting lasting social change hence leading to political transformation. He says that violence must play the role of ending the rampant corrupt politics of the bourgeois democracy and at the same time ensure that the world is no longer guided by capitalism (Keane, 1996, p6). Georges Sorel had the belief that, in order to accomplish political transformation, there was a great reason to create catastrophic and violent revolutions using general strikes in response to the injustices that had to be eradicated for transformation to follow. Georges Sorel equates violence to life itself and believed that it was necessary for reform. To him, violence is a creative and virtuous way of dealing with issues that attempt to be a hindrance to the wave of change that was unavoidable. He believed that violence had the role of saving the world from all the barbarism of capitalism and middle-class democracy (Keane, 1996, p66). The role of myths is an important theme in Sorel’s book. According to him, myths determine the peoples will to act. They encourage people to fight for what is rightfully theirs and ensure that they get an equal share of what they worked hard to generate (Schwarzmantel, 2011, p43). If violence is the instrument to attaining these fundamental rights, then it must be employed promptly and accurately with a certain objective in mind. Sorel also argues that the role of violence is to lead to the creation of a good economic system, run by the producers and which will focus primarily on their interests rather that the interests of the consumers and the upper class of people dominated by capitalists (Keane, 1996, p94). Violence is, therefore, the key for not only achieving the political ends of the individuals, but also to ensure reform and creation of an equal society devoid of capitalists and selfish persons. Sorel concludes that violence has a paramount role to play in the pursuit for political transformation. Franz Fanon and Georges Sorel have made it clear that violence is very important for any political transformation. In this 20th century, politics and violence have become inseparable, as one cannot exist without the other (Ryan, 2007, p176). They have established a complementing kind of relationship that is characterizes by the use of force to achieve the objectives of a certain group and bring reform. Whenever any political system refuses to respond to the political demands and grievances of its populace, violence is justified and necessary in order to achieve the political objectives of the people (Colletta & Cullen, 2000, p123). They will use violence as an avenue to air their demands. At this stage, violence will be manifested by strikes and destruction of property. At the end, the violent action must be directed towards the political system and its aim must to affect the smooth functioning of the system for it to pay attention to the burdens of the people. A second circumstance, which necessitates for violence, is when the government has to intimidate the populace into acquiescence. Sometimes the government will formulate policies that do not go down well with the people. In order to make people accept and respect them, the government will be forced to use violence to emphasize its intentions (Guichaoua, 2012, p102). It is often when the in times of insecurity the government employs a curfew but the public would at the same time disagree and demand for another way of dealing with the insecurity. Violence is demonstrated when those found to be ignoring the order are punished. This will lead to some sort of political transformations, as violence will ensure the right thing is done and security is given the attention it demands (Hamber, 2009, p22). Violence has also been deemed necessary when a country has to act in retaliation to an external aggressive enemy. When defending its borders from external aggression in order to maintain the peaceful conditions within its borders, violence is key (Hartmann, 2006, p173). At the same time, governments may want to coerce another government with the aim of fostering its personal interests. Therefore, a necessary violent approach has to be used to attain some kind of political transformation. Conquering new territory is a measure that cannot be undertaken without the use of violence, the priorities of a particular government must be set and the objective for conquering determined (Pansters, 2012, p74). At the end if the objective will result to reform, then violence is without a doubt necessary. Since it is affirmed that violence is necessary for political transformation, we need to, therefore, come up with acceptable ways of articulating this violence. The model must ensure minimal damage and less injury to the involved parties. The violence must be guided by a well thought out objective and it must have exhausted all the other available procedure that could be used to arrive at a favorable solution. Peaceful demonstrations are one way to go. Always use this constitutional right to make your demands heard while at the same time minimizing destruction of property (Blasko & Januauskiene, 2008, p56). The government will have no choice but to respond because the message will have reached them in a more appropriate way that will demand for immediate attention. Governments should also not coerce its populace or force them to accommodate unrealistic policies. Proper means of ensuring that policies are clearly stipulated will work to its advantage (Linklater, 1998, p49). In the first place, equality must exist or the alienated must struggle to bring themselves back to humanity (Ryan, 2007, p91). They must recognize their right and find favorable ways of acquiring this equality. Mindful articulation of violence, in order to achieve the goals of an individual, should be trailed (Eickelmann, 2005, p109). Violence, though the route to pursue in political transformation, it has to be followed cleverly. In general, violence should be used as a means of achieving the political end of the populace and not for any other ill motives. The main objective of any violent act in a political process should be to make relevant transformation steps. At the end of the day, it is how the violence is articulated that will determine the reaction of the other party (Kapadia, 2002, p69). If all is articulated with a genuine objective in mind, then violence will ultimately result to political transformation. Conclusion It is apparent that violence’s main goal should is to achieve the political ends of a given individual. Franz Fanon views violence as the only thing that will free human kind from the shackles of colonization; he is convinced that violence is not only necessary but also the only solution to all the social problems. Georges Sorel compares violence to life, creativity and virtue. He believes that violence is the only means that can be able to affect long lasting social change. Capitalism and corrupt politics should be the main targets of violence as it seeks to completely eradicate them. Bibliography Anderson, Eric. (2009). Facts of reconstruction: essays in honor of john hope franklin. New York: Louisiana State Univ. Blasko, A. M., & Januauskiene, D. (2008). Political transformation and changing identities in central and eastern Europe.Washington, D.C.: Council for Research in Values and Philosophy. Carrasco, D. (1999). City of sacrifice: the Aztec empire and the role of violence in civilization. Boston: Beacon Press. Colletta, N. J., & Cullen, M. L. (2000). Violent conflict and the transformation of social capital: lessons from Cambodia, Rwanda, Guatemala, and Somalia. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Della, Porta. (2006). Social movement, political violence and the state: a comparative analysis of Italy and Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eickelmann, A. (2005). Justice and violence: political violence, pacifism and cultural transformation. Aldershot: Ashgate. Fanon, F. (1963).The Wretched of the earth. New York, Grove Press. Guichaoua, Y. (2012). Understanding collective political violence.Houndmills: Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan. Hamber, B. (2009). Transforming Societies after Political Violence Truth, Reconciliation, and Mental Health. New York: Springer-Verlag. Hartmann, H. (2006). Violence, extremism and transformation.Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung. Kapadia, K. (2002). The violence of development: the politics of identity, gender and social inequalities in India. London: Zed. Keane, J. (1996). Reflections on violence. London: Verso. King, C. (2010). Extreme politics: nationalism, violence, and the end of Eastern Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Linklater, A. (1998). The transformation of political community: ethical foundations of the post- Westphalian era. Columbia: Univ. of South Carolina Press. Oday, A. (1997). Political violence in Northern Ireland: conflict and conflict resolution. Westport: Praeger. Pansters, W. G. (2012).Violence, Coercion, and State-Making in Twentieth-Century Mexico the Other Half of the Centaur. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Ryan, S. (2007). The transformation of violent intercommunal conflict. Aldershot: England, Ashgate. Schwarzmantel, J. J. (2011). Democracy and political violence. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Walkowitz, D. J. (2004). Memory and the impact of political transformation in public space. Durham: Duke University Press. Read More