The Role of Violence in Politics - Essay Example

number The Role of Violence in Politics Introduction Violence has been growing within many countries across the globe. The vice of violence has affected both developed and developing states and it remains a manifestation of political and economic disputes, a persistent expression of differences in identity, and a tool of those opposing the rights of women and minorities. Governments in Asia, Africa and Europe which are often considered as fragile are being weakened by civil wars. On the other hand, stable governments everywhere turn a blind eye on brutality against groups identified by religion, race, poverty, sexuality or ethnicity. The scope and complexity of internal violence is a paradox, because it is occurring in an era of unprecedented democratization and economic growth. Policy makers once anticipated that the growth of democratic regimes and economic prosperity would result into civil peace (Tily, 28). It is often argued that as more people continue and/or begin to play a larger role in politics, the increased prevalence of violence within a country becomes more likely. Given the wide breadth and innumerable causes of political violence, is there any way to understand its dynamics? This paper takes a steep forward answering such questions and analyzing the role of violence in politics. By no means, all contentious politics generate violence and the problem is precisely to explain when contention takes a violent turn. However, all collective violence involves contention of one kind or another. More often than not, countries usually cross into the territory of contentious politics when governments, individuals or organizations that control concentrated means of coercion become parties of discontinuous public, collective claims. Governments become parties to contention as claimants, objects of claims, or stakeholders. In this case, violence is often a by-product of contentious politics. It counts as contentious because participants are making claims that affect each other’s interests. It counts as politics because relations of participants to governments are always at stake. Violence and government maintain a nauseous relationship. Where and when governments are very weak, interpersonal violence commonly proliferates in the populations under the nominal jurisdictions of those governments. Consequently, as governments grow very strong, the culture of violence usually declines. Political and political philosophers alike, often root for good, strong government as a bulwark against violent victimization. Indeed, it is important to explain the political context within which regimes or political players differ so greatly with respect to which forms and agents of violence they sponsor, legitimate, forbid, or tolerate. Every society is faced with limited resources, whether it is natural resources, economic opportunities, public sector jobs and funds, or government positions. How these resources get to be shared out is at the core of politics, which is by definition the process by which scarce resources are authoritatively allocated. In the event that some players perceive that the political system is not allowing them access to the share they feel they are entitled to, and they have the ways and means to mobilize sub-state groups against each other, in many cases with the promise of dominating and excluding other groups, politics can turn ugly and violent. On the other hand, if political institutions are engineered in a way that all relevant players find it within their interests to continue to compete within the bounds of the given system, vulnerability and political violence will be significantly reduced. The same case applies to non-political violence which is fueled by the same pattern of impunity that fuel violence in the political arena. Moreover, the pervasive role of violence in politics has a devastating effect on human rights. As a result of violence, thousands of people are deprived of their very right or are subjected to physical assaults because of the violent nature of political competition (Schwarzmantel, 88). By considering the casualty estimates alone, this may understate the scale of the human rights impact of political violence. Violence also discourages and prevents political participation and plays a central role in denying ordinary people a right to choose and/or elect leaders of their choice. Violence unleashed by politicians and their sponsors during elections and other periods of political contestation does not simply fade away once the political battles have been decided. More often than not, violence fomented for the purpose of winning elections has taken on a life and logic of its won and continued to elicit widespread human rights abuses over the long term. This type of political violence is often carried out by gangs whose members are openly recruited, financed and sometimes armed by public officials, politicians and party officials or their representatives. In most cases, sponsors of political violence turn time and again to the same criminal gangs and other sources to recruit agents of political violence (Rable, 218). While these criminal gangs are often at the front lines of political clashes in many countries, they do not by any means have a monopoly on the market for hired thugs. Majority of the countries that have been rocked with political violence, politicians often view violence­ as a necessary part of any political campaigns. This is because it is considered both as an offensive weapon and as a component of personal security. In other cases, politicians explain their use of political violence by pointing out the ineffectual or partisan response of law-enforcement agencies to violence that targets them. In Nigeria, not all aspirants vying for political positions can raise the substantial resources that are required to compete in the country’s violent and corrupt political system. This is often the case if these individuals do not enjoy control over public resources to begin with. As a result, these individuals are sponsored by wealthy and powerful individuals who are often referred to as political godfathers. These godfathers not only provide financial support for political campaigns, but they are individuals whose power stems not just from wealth but from their ability to deploy political violence to manipulate national, state or local political systems in support of the politicians they sponsor. In return, they demand a substantial degree of control over the governments they help bring into being in the form of government resources stolen by their protégés or lucrative government contracts awarded to them as further opportunities for graft. The existence of godfathers within the political system has long been a symptom and catalyst of political violence. Godfathers are only relevant because politicians are able to deploy political violence with impunity to vie for office in contests that often effectively exclude voters altogether. The activities of godfathers help to reinforce the central role of violence to politics by making it even more difficult to win elected office without resorting to the illegal tactics that they represent. In Europe, political violence was largely related to battles over secular state power and direction. A broader geographical focus also brings into clearer relief the extent to which political violence of the European twentieth century was inseparable from the generation of new forms of state power and the projection to other societies, be they distant territories of imperial conquest or ones much closer home. In addition, the political violence of the twentieth century was a coherent period in which certain unitary processes occurred that gave rise to specific congeries of political violence. The transitions of new forms of mass politics that occurred in much of Europe between the franchise reforms of the 1870s, the emergence of socialism, and of new forms of populist right-wing politics, and the revolutionary upheavals in Russia and elsewhere in the early years of the twentieth century marked a substantial and durable change in the patterns of internal European politics. This period culminated into the beginning of the scramble for Africa with its violent patterns of colonial expansion and exploitation. Violence was hardly absent in the politics of the preceding years but these changes marked the coming together of recognizably modern forms of political violence (Worcester et al, 189). Conclusion Since time in memorial, violence has historically been exercised in favor of democracy, as seeking to extend democracy to groups and movements hitherto excluded from the rights of citizenship. Similarly, those opposing political violence in the name of democracy often do so out of a desire to preserve an existing power structure. Hence, it is wrong to see political violence as necessarily opposed to or challenging democracy and democratic ideals. In a nutshell, the role of violence in politics takes diverse forms. On one hand, political violence has been used as a means of putting pressure on incumbents in order to capture in order to capture political rights which could not be achieved in any other way. On the other hand, political violence is often the response of those who are forcibly prevented from peaceful participation in the processes of democratic politics. Works Cited Rable, G. C. But There Was no Peace: The Role of Violence in the Politics of Reconstruction. USA: University of Georgia Press, 2007. Print. Schwarzmantel, J. J. Democracy and Political Violence. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2011. Print. Tily, C. The Politics of Collective Violence. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print. Worcester, K et al. Violence and Politics: Globalization’s Paradox. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print. Read More