Critique of Violence - Essay Example

Critique of Violence violence is an issue that has attracted a lot of attention among many scholars. While the formation of state was a necessary factor to end the man-to-man enmity, the political changes did not end violence. Instead, the state was given a legitimate right to perpetrate violence and to have the power to decide who should die and who should not. The height of this matter can be evaluated from the atrocities of Nazism and other state sponsored violence incidences. Majority of authors support the idea that states have become the new source of violence since it possesses the power to execute violence legally. Notably, abolishing states would not be an end to violence in the world as human beings would turn against one another. However, there is need for strict control of power possessed by states to ensure that incidences of violence are minimized and the public are at a less vulnerable point. The members of public should work together to limit government power in order to reduce cases of violence within states. In what way is the State a violent nature institution State violence is a scenario that emerged as soon as the state was formed. The theories of state formation indicate that states originated from the intention of human beings to surrender power to a central body that would protect people from one another. In nature, human beings are aggressive and would do anything to acquire wealth and other material things. It is this aggressive nature of human beings that brings the urge to kill as each of them pursues their interests. Therefore, human beings had to surrender this ill power to the state so that the state would control their aggression. Consequently, the state uses this power to exercise violence within the public. As Weber (11-40) notes, the state is a relation of men dominating men by means of legitimate violence. The implication is that the state government uses the power accorded by the public to control them and to exercise violence within the boundaries. Since the state is unquestionable and is responsible for the formation of laws, they possess the power to exercise violence with no questions from the public. Therefore, the public are submissive to the power of the government, and this puts them at a vulnerable position. The state uses violence to pursue their selfish goals and to control the rebellion of the members of public. Mbembe (12) points out that the government possesses the power to decide who dies and who lives. This implies that the sovereignty of the state is manifested in their ability to decide matters of life. While government can use this power to control conflict such as in controlling terrorism, there is evidence that the state has constantly used this as weapon to control rebellion among the members of public. For instance, in Germany, Adolf Hitler used violence to control the uproar of Jews who felt that the government was corrupt and did not support democracy. In other countries, the government has exercised violence as a weapon to control those who quest for democracy. The state kills those who criticize its actions even when they are corrupt or against the constitution that mandates their practice. From a different perspective, states are in constant war against each other as they pursue their goals. Boundary and resources conflict are constantly propagated as a result of the urge of the states to expand and to control others. Therefore, the state is a violent entity owing from the power they possess. Why is this form of violence legitimate? Government has the power to exercise violence within the law as long as this violence remains within the boundaries of the constitution. Walter (281) describes the state as the only legal subject entitled to exercise violence. Since the state has the constitutional mandate, they possess the power to exercise violence. In essence, the formation of the state signified the surrender of power by the people to the government to illegalize violence among the people and legitimize the state violence. For instance, while workers are allowed to protest against an oppressive employee, they have no right to exercise violence. However, the police have the right to use violence against those who rebel against the government. Besides, in matters such as crime, the government has the legitimate power to condemn a criminal to death. Therefore, governments act of violence are perceived to be constitutional and within the law. Besides, the current government models give the state unquestionable power to perpetrate violence even when they divert out of the constitution. However, while the government has the legitimate power to exercise violence, there is evidence that in various circumstances. The abuse of power by the state has become an increasingly important issue in the contemporary government systems. For instance, the use of excessive force is one of the incidences that are rampant today within states. In countries such as Germany and South Africa, there has been evidence of use excessive power to control riots as members of public quest for democracy. The government uses the power they possess to silence genuine complaints within the public. In various occasions, corrupt governments use violence to remain in power as they use public resource to enrich their families (Weber 15). Therefore, besides the legitimate use of government power, there is evidence of abuse of power by the government as they perpetrate violence against members of the public. Given the increasing acts of state Sponsored violence, do you consider that states be abolished? The increase in the number of state-sponsored violence has raised the question of whether the states should be abolished. State sponsored violence is evidence that the state failed to control the world violence that it was expected to resolve. The formation of state was meant to prevent the aggressive actions of the public and to control “animosity” that would exist as human beings compete for personal interests. However, the formation of state has had negative consequences as the incidences of power abuse have increased. As a matter of fact, violence has increased and the government uses its absolute power, not to help the public, but to pursue their own goals. Abolishing the state would ensure that the government’s abuse of power is eliminated and that the people have the right to pursue their rights (Weber 18). Therefore, abolishing the states would result to the formation of the original stateless systems, where each person pursued their best interest to the best of their abilities. Therefore, this present a possible solution to the increased cases of state sponsored violence in the contemporary government systems. However, there is evidence that the abolishment of the state would not be amicable solution to violence in the world today. First, the government plays an important role in controlling inter-personal conflict within the society. Besides, pursuing personal interests, the government prevents the existence of conflict between members of public. For instance, land conflicts are often controlled through the court systems to prevent conflict of interests. Therefore, abolishing the state would spark new violence between the people. The realism theories argue that human beings are violent in nature due to their natural instincts to pursue their selfish goals. Without the government violence, between the members of public would be worse and it would impossible to achieve peace in the world (Mbembe and Meintjes 14). In such a case, people would kill one another as they compete for natural resource such as land and wealth. Therefore, the state is essential to keep order among the people. To control state sponsored violence, it would be essential for the members of public to control power abuse and co-work with international bodies. The international bodies play a fundamental role in ensuring that the rights of the people against government and to compel state governments to uphold democracy. Therefore, international bodies should be more aggressive to control state violence and to develop laws that prohibit power abuse. Members of public must be more aggressive while pursuing their personal rights. While the road to democracy is painful, it is crucial and there is need for public assertion in ensuring that the government implements the mandate of the constitution (Walter 283). Countries such as Egypt, democracy have been achieved through demonstrations against illegal government activities. In conclusion, the state violence can only be controlled through an integrative approach involving both international bodies and members of the public. Since state violence has been legitimized, it is a challenge to control the illegal acts of the government. The formation of the states implied that the public surrenders their power to the state to control their aggressive nature. The legitimization of government violence underpins the increase in state-sponsored violence and abuse of democratic rights of the public. Since the making of states is an irrevocable decision, strict control of the government would help reduce the states aggressive behavior. The international bodies should take a firm stand in controlling the power of the government and the public should be more vigilant in pursuing their personal rights. Works Cited Mbembe, J-A &Libby, Meintjes. "Necropolitics." Public culture 15.1, 2003: 11-40. Walter, Benjamin. Critique of Violence [Online]. 2000. Weber, Max. Politics as a Vocation. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1965. Print. Read More