Political Violence

• What do you mean by violence?
  
• When violence becomes 'political
  
• Its manifestations
  
• Circumstances leading to political violence
  
• Reasons advanced for and against it
  
• Possible effects of continued political violence on the body-politic
  
• Political violence in the Bangladesh perspective
  
• Conclusion
  

What do you mean by violence?

Violence, at its most fundamental level, is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation. This definition, adapted from the World Health Organization's typology of violence, captures the essence of violence as an act that transcends mere accident or natural occurrence; it is purposeful, directed, and often instrumental. Violence can be physical, as in assault or murder; psychological, through intimidation or coercion; sexual, via rape or harassment; or structural, embedded in social systems that perpetuate inequality and harm without direct action, as theorized by Johan Galtung in his distinction between direct, structural, and cultural violence.

To unpack this further, violence is not merely the absence of peace but an active disruption of bodily integrity or social harmony. Philosophers like Hannah Arendt distinguished between power (the human ability to act in concert) and violence (an instrument that can destroy power but never create it). In Arendt's view, violence is "mute" it speaks through destruction rather than dialogue. Sociologically, Max Weber defined the state as holding a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within a territory, implying that violence becomes contested when non-state actors challenge this monopoly.

Violence operates on a spectrum. At one end lies interpersonal violence: a fistfight between individuals over personal grievance. At the other lies collective violence: wars, genocides, or revolutions where thousands perish. It can be reactive (retaliation) or proactive (preemptive strikes). In psychological terms, Frantz Fanon in The Wretched of the Earth argued that violence can be cathartic for the colonized, cleansing the psyche of inferiority imposed by oppression. Yet, this catharsis comes at a cost, often perpetuating cycles of trauma.

Culturally, violence is normalized in media, sports (e.g., boxing), and rituals (e.g., animal sacrifices in some traditions). Structurally, it manifests in poverty that kills slowly through malnutrition or lack of healthcare what Rob Nixon calls "slow violence." In environmental contexts, violence includes ecocide: the deliberate destruction of ecosystems, as seen in deforestation or oil spills that displace communities.

Quantitatively, the Global Burden of Disease study estimates that interpersonal violence caused over 400,000 deaths annually in recent years, while conflicts add hundreds of thousands more. Homicides, suicides (a form of self-directed violence), and war-related deaths underscore violence's ubiquity. In 2023, the Uppsala Conflict Data Program recorded over 200,000 battle-related deaths worldwide, excluding indirect deaths from famine or disease.

Violence is gendered: men perpetrate most physical violence, but women suffer disproportionately from intimate partner violence (1 in 3 women globally, per WHO). Children experience violence through corporal punishment or abuse, with long-term effects on brain development. Elderly face neglect or financial exploitation as forms of violence.

In sum, violence is a multifaceted phenomenon: intentional, harmful, and contextual. It is not inherently evil self-defense or surgery involves force but becomes problematic when it violates consent, proportionality, or justice. Understanding violence requires dissecting its forms, intents, and consequences, setting the stage for when it intersects with politics.

When violence becomes 'political'

Violence becomes political when it is employed to achieve, maintain, resist, or transform power relations within a polity. Politics, derived from the Greek polis (city-state), concerns the distribution of power, resources, and authority in society. Thus, political violence is violence instrumentalized for political ends: influencing government, policy, ideology, or state control.

Charles Tilly's seminal work posits that "war made the state, and the state made war," suggesting violence is intrinsic to state formation. When bandits or rebels use force to challenge sovereignty, their actions are political. Conversely, state repression police brutality or military coups is political violence from above.

The threshold is intent and target. A bar brawl is not political; the same brawl targeting a political opponent during elections is. Assassinations like that of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 sparked World War I, transforming personal vendetta into global political violence. Riots become political when demanding policy change, as in the 2020 George Floyd protests.

Hannah Arendt argued violence is antipolitical because it substitutes force for persuasion, yet in practice, it often accompanies politics. Revolutions exemplify this: the French Revolution's Reign of Terror was political violence to consolidate republican power. Terrorism is quintessentially political violence: non-state actors using fear to coerce political concessions, per the UN's definition.

State violence becomes political when exceeding legal bounds, like extrajudicial killings in counterinsurgencies. In democracies, election violence voter intimidation or ballot stuffing with threats politicizes violence. Genocide, as in Rwanda 1994, is political violence par excellence: eliminating a group to reshape the body politic.

Contextual factors politicize violence: during transitions (post-colonial states), economic crises, or identity conflicts. In federations, separatist violence (e.g., ETA in Spain) is political. Cyber violence doxxing politicians is emerging as political.

Distinguishing political from criminal violence: the former targets symbols of power (capitols, leaders); the latter seeks personal gain. Overlap exists in narco-politics, where cartels fund candidates.

Theoretically, just war theory (jus ad bellum) evaluates when state violence is political and legitimate. Clausewitz called war "politics by other means," blurring lines.

In essence, violence turns political when linked to power struggles, making it a tool in the arsenal of governance, resistance, or domination.

Its manifestations

Political violence manifests in diverse forms, from subtle coercion to overt destruction. These can be categorized by actor (state vs. non-state), scale (individual vs. mass), and method (direct vs. indirect).

State-sponsored manifestations:

• Repression: Police using tear gas, batons, or live ammunition on protesters, as in Hong Kong 2019 or Myanmar 2021 coup.
• Coups d'état: Military overthrow of governments, e.g., Thailand's multiple coups or Egypt 2013.
• Death squads: Paramilitary units eliminating dissidents, like in El Salvador's civil war.
• Torture: Systematic in authoritarian regimes, per Amnesty International reports on Syria's Sednaya prison.
• Genocide and ethnic cleansing: State-orchestrated, e.g., Holocaust or Bosnia 1990s.

Non-state manifestations:

• Terrorism: Bombings (9/11), shootings (Charlie Hebdo 2015), or vehicular attacks (Nice 2016). Groups like ISIS use spectacular violence for propaganda.
• Insurgency and guerrilla warfare: Asymmetric tactics, e.g., Taliban in Afghanistan or FARC in Colombia.
• Assassinations: Targeting leaders, like Indira Gandhi 1984 or Shinzo Abe 2022.
• Riots and mob violence: Election-related, e.g., U.S. Capitol January 6, 2021.
• Vigilantism: Groups enforcing "order," like lynchings in India over cow protection.

Hybrid forms:

• Election violence: Intimidation, killings; in Kenya 2007, over 1,000 died.
• Cyber political violence: Hacking elections (Russia's alleged 2016 U.S. interference) or online harassment campaigns.
• Economic sabotage: Striking infrastructure for political leverage.

Manifestations evolve with technology: drones in targeted killings (U.S. program), social media inciting violence (Myanmar Rohingya genocide).

Scale varies: micro (single assassination) to macro (world wars). In 2024, ACLED data showed over 200,000 political violence events globally, mostly in Africa and Middle East.

Gendered manifestations: sexual violence as weapon of war (e.g., Bosnia rapes) or femicide in political contexts.

Manifestations often cascade: protests escalate to riots, then insurgency.

Circumstances leading to political violence

Political violence erupts under specific circumstances, often a confluence of structural, proximate, and triggering factors.

Structural circumstances:

• Inequality: Economic disparities fuel grievances. Gini coefficients above 0.4 correlate with higher violence risk, per World Bank. In Latin America, inequality drives gang violence politicized by corruption.
• Weak institutions: Failed states (Somalia) lack monopoly on violence, inviting warlords.
• Identity cleavages: Ethnic, religious, or linguistic divisions, exacerbated by discrimination. Yugoslavia's breakup stemmed from Tito-era suppressed nationalism.
• Resource scarcity: "Resource curse" in oil-rich nations leads to violence over rents (Nigeria's Niger Delta).
• Historical legacies: Colonial borders ignoring ethnicities (Africa's arbitrary lines) sow seeds for conflict.

Proximate circumstances:

• Economic shocks: Hyperinflation (Weimar Germany enabling Nazis) or pandemics (COVID-19 amplifying inequalities, sparking protests).
• Political exclusion: Rigged elections or minority rule (Syria's Alawite dominance over Sunni majority).
• Leadership failures: Corruption scandals eroding legitimacy, as in Brazil's Lava Jato leading to polarization.
• External interventions: Foreign backing of rebels (U.S. in Afghanistan 1980s creating mujahideen, later Taliban).

Triggering events:

• Spark incidents: A single act ignites, like Tunisian vendor Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation sparking Arab Spring 2011.
• Elections: Contested results, e.g., Ivory Coast 2010 post-election war.
• Assassinations or scandals: Benazir Bhutto's 2007 killing destabilized Pakistan.

Theoretically, Ted Gurr's relative deprivation theory: violence when expected vs. achieved needs gap widens. Frustration-aggression hypothesis links blocked goals to violence.

In democracies, polarization (U.S. partisan divide) lowers thresholds. In autocracies, succession crises (North Korea) or protests (Belarus 2020).

Circumstances interact: Yemen's war combines tribal divisions, poverty, and Saudi-Iran proxy.

Prevention requires addressing roots: inclusive governance, economic reforms.

Reasons advanced for and against it

Reasons for political violence:

• Justice and liberation: Oppressed groups justify violence as necessary against tyranny. Fanon's decolonization theory: violence expels colonizer's inferiority complex. Mandela's ANC turned to armed struggle after peaceful means failed under apartheid.
• Self-defense: Against state aggression, e.g., Kurdish Peshmerga vs. ISIS.
• Deterrence and bargaining: Weak actors use violence to force concessions, per Schelling's coercion theory. IRA bombings pressured UK on Northern Ireland.
• Revolutionary change: Marxists see violence as midwife of history, overthrowing bourgeoisie (Russian Revolution 1917).
• Ideological purity: Extremists purge "impure" elements, like Khmer Rouge's killing fields.
• Practicality: When non-violent means exhausted, per Gene Sharp's 198 methods of non-violent action – if all fail, violence ensues.

Proponents cite successes: American Revolution, Haitian slave revolt.

Reasons against:

• Moral illegitimacy: Violates human rights, per Universal Declaration. Gandhi's ahimsa: non-violence as stronger force.
• Ineffectiveness: Often backfires, hardening opposition (Syrian civil war prolonged Assad's rule).
• Cycle of vengeance: Perpetuates trauma, per PTSD studies in conflict zones.
• Undermines legitimacy: Terrorists alienate supporters (Al-Qaeda post-9/11).
• Alternatives exist: Civil disobedience (MLK's marches) achieved desegregation without violence.
• State monopoly: Weber: only state can legitimately use violence; challengers are criminals.
• Human cost: Civilian deaths outweigh gains (WWII 70-85 million dead).

Critics like Popper warn of utopian violence leading to totalitarianism. Empirical data: non-violent campaigns succeed 53% vs. 26% for violent, per Chenoweth and Stephan's study of 323 movements.

Balance: violence sometimes accelerates change but at prohibitive costs; non-violence builds sustainable peace.

Possible effects of continued political violence on the body-politic

Continued political violence erodes the body politic – the metaphorical organism of society, per Plato – in profound ways.

Institutional decay:

• Weakens rule of law: extrajudicial actions normalize impunity (Philippines' drug war).
• Undermines democracy: voter suppression via fear reduces turnout; polarization entrenches (U.S. post-Jan 6 trust deficit).
• Military entrenchment: coups lead to praetorian states (Pakistan's history).

Social fragmentation:

• Deepens divides: identity-based violence creates "us vs. them" (Rwanda's Hutu-Tutsi legacy).
• Trauma transmission: intergenerational PTSD, per studies on Holocaust survivors' children.
• Displacement: refugees strain hosts (Syria's 6 million externally displaced).

Economic devastation:

• Destroys infrastructure: GDP drops 2% annually in conflicts, per World Bank.
• Brain drain: professionals flee (Venezuela's exodus).
• Corruption flourishes in chaos.

Psychological impacts:

• Desensitization: violence becomes norm (Colombia's narco-culture).
• Radicalization: youth recruited into cycles.

International effects:

• Spillover: proxy wars (Yemen affecting shipping).
• Erosion of norms: weakens UN, human rights.

Positive effects? Rarely: unites against common enemy (WWII Allies), but usually negative.

Long-term: failed states, authoritarian backlash, or fragile peace (Liberia post-civil war).

Mitigation: truth commissions (South Africa), DDR programs.

Political violence in the Bangladesh perspective

Bangladesh's history is marred by political violence, from independence to contemporary authoritarianism.

Colonial and partition era: 1947 partition violence killed millions; East Pakistan (Bangladesh) faced West Pakistani dominance.

Liberation War 1971: Pakistani military's Operation Searchlight killed 300,000-3 million, raped 200,000-400,000 women – genocide for political control. Mukti Bahini guerrillas responded with violence, leading to independence.

Post-independence:

• 1975 coup: Sheikh Mujibur Rahman assassinated; military rule ensued with coups (Ziaur Rahman killed 1981).
• Ershad era (1982-1990): repression of opposition.

Democracy restoration 1991: Alternating Awami League (AL) and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) rule, but violent.

Manifestations:

• Hartals and clashes: Opposition-enforced strikes turn violent; 1990s-2000s hundreds died annually.
• Student wings: Chhatra League (AL) and Shibir (Jamaat) clash with bombs, machetes.
• Election violence: 2014 boycott led to unopposed seats; 2018 rigging allegations sparked protests. 2024 elections under Hasina saw opposition crackdown.
• Extrajudicial killings: RAB's "crossfire" killed thousands, per Odhikar.
• Digital repression: Digital Security Act jails critics.

Circumstances:

• Polarization: AL vs. BNP family dynasties (Hasina vs. Zia).
• Economic inequality: despite growth, garment workers' protests repressed.
• Religious extremism: Hefazat-e-Islam clashes; Jamaat banned post-1971 trials.
• 2013 Shahbagh vs. Hefazat violence over war crimes.

Recent: 2024 uprising: Student protests against job quotas escalated after police killings; Hasina resigned August 5, fleeing to India. Interim government under Yunus faces violence from AL remnants and Islamists. Over 1,000 dead in July-August 2024.

Effects: Stunted development; 1971 trauma lingers. ICT trials politicized justice.

Reasons for/against: AL justifies force for "stability"; opposition sees it as fascism. Non-violent movements rare but effective (1990 anti-Ershad).

Bangladesh exemplifies how violence begets authoritarianism, yet people's power toppled Hasina non-violently initially.

Conclusion

Political violence, defined as force wielded for power, manifests destructively yet sometimes transformatively. From structural inequalities to triggers, it arises when dialogue fails. Arguments for it cite necessity against oppression; against, moral and practical failures. Effects ravage societies, as in Bangladesh's cyclical turmoil from 1971 to 2024.

Ultimately, sustainable politics demands non-violence: dialogue, inclusion, justice. As Arendt warned, violence destroys power; building requires consent. Bangladesh's recent shift offers hope if violence is curtailed through reforms. The body politic heals not through more wounds but through empathy and equity. In a world of rising conflicts, rejecting political violence is imperative for human flourishing.

AI Creation