Chapter 7: Political Violence

Explanations for Political Violence

Explanation: Institutional Reasoning: Existing institutions may encourage violence or constrain human action, creating a violent backlash. Example: Presidentialism Explanation: Ideational Reasoning: Ideas may justify or promote the use of violence Example: Some forms of religious fundamentalism; nationalism Explanation: Individual Reasoning: Psychological or strategic factors may leas people to carry out violence. Example: Humiliation

Why political violence? Ideational Explanations

Ideational-we simply mean having to do with ideas. Ideas may be institutionalized-concepts rooted in some institution such as a political organization or a religion-but just as often they are uninstitutionalized , with no real organizational base. Argument here is that ideas play an important role in political violence in the way they say out a worldview, diagnose a set of problems, provide a resolution, and describe the means of getting there. Any of all of these elements can be bound up with justification of violence Political violence is more likely to be associated with attitudes views the current institutional order as bankrupt and beyond reform.

Why political violence? Individual Explanations

Individual explanations center on those who carry out the violence. Emphazies the personal motivations that lead people to contemplate and carry out violence tiward political ends Psychological factors: conditions that draw individuals toward violence. Such factors can function of individual experiences, or they may be shaped by broader conditions in society, such as levels of economic development or gender roles. This approach tends to concentrate on how people may be driven to violence as an expression of desperation, the desire for liberation, or social solidarity. Ex. some scholars of religious violence emohazie the role od humilation as a motivating force, a sense that an individual's own beliefs are actively marganilized and denigrated by society. Revolutionaries or terriost see violence as a way to restore meaning to their lives and may be largerly unconcerned whether they are effectively achieving their goals.

Why political violence? Institutional Explanations

Institutions define and shape human activity, and institutional explanations argue that their specific qualities or combination are essential to political violence. The emphasis can be on political institutions, such as states and regimes; economic institutions, such as capitalism; or societal institutions, such as culture and religion. Institutional explanations can be seen as a quest for a root source for violence, a necessary condition for violent actions to take place, and a presumption that changes in the institutional structure would eliminate the motivation for this violence.

Comparing Explanations of Political violence

One important element of comparison across these three explanations is how they approach free will-to what extent people are the primary actors in political violence. Insitutional explataions are quite determinsitic, seeing peiople as shaped and directed by larger structures that they do not control. An individual's recourse to violence is simply the final step in a much larger process Indidual explations place their focus squarely on people; they are the primary markers of violence because they choose to be Ideational explanations lie somewhere in between Ideas are influenced by insituions but they are also actively taken up and molded by individuals to justify political violence. Insitutional explanations tend to be more particuarlistic explanations, stressing a unique combination and role of insitutions in a given case that are not easily generalized and applied elsewhere Individual explanations typically center on those personal or psychological attributes common to all humans that can lead to violence. Ideational explanations, again, lie somewhere in the middle, generalizing the importance of ideas while noting the distinct lessons that differnt ideas impart. Insitutional factors provide contex in which particular preconditions, problems, and conflicts may emerge. Ideational factors help describe and define those problems, ascribe blame, and provide solutions by calling for the transformation of the status quo. These ideas in turn influence and are shaped by individuals and groups that may already be prone to violent activity. Example: Basque independence group in spain, which used violence as a political tool for several decades untill finally swearing off violence in 2011. If we examine them , we can see insitutional factors that include a long period of repression under authoritarin rules and its effects on the basque region. There are ideational factors as well, such as a belief among members and supports that the Basque people face cultural extermination at the hands of the spanish. Finally individual factors include the role and motivations of many of the basque youth in condicting "kale borroka" (urban struggle) in their support for an indepent, revolutionary basque state).

Shifting Views of Revolution

Phase: First: Pre-World War II Approach: Studies of revolutionary events Critism: Unsystematic and descriptive Phase: Post-World War II Approach: Studies of disruptive change, such as modernization, as driving revolutionary action Critism: Not clear why change or rising discontent leads to revolution in some cases and not others Phase: 1970s-Present Approach: Studies of domestic and international state power as providing the opening for revolution Critism: Too focused on insitutions, to the neglet of ideas and individual actors

Countering Political Violence

Political violence is varied and constantly shifting force in the modern world. As long as states monoploize force, there will be actors who seek to wrest this power from the state so they can use it to pursue their own political objectives. One observation is that regime type appears to make a differnce; terriorism and revolution are less likely in democratic societies. Why? Democratic societies allow for a significant defree of participation among a wide enough number of citizens to make them deel that they have a sake in the system. The result of top-down or violent regime change is instead more likely to lead to an illiberal regime where democracy is weakly insitutionalized or even a failed state. Such conditions can provide both the motivation and the oppurtunity for political violence to emerge What do you do in states that are akready liberal democracies and yet face political violence from domestic and international actors. Classic dilema between freedom versus security raises its head. In the face of threats, democratic states and their citizens willl often favor limiting certan civil liberties and increasing state autonomy and capacity in order to bring an end to political violence. Ex. Patriot Act in US, with increased powers to conduct public surveillance. Focusing excessively on security over freedom may be dangerous to democracy

Regime Type and Terrorism

Regime Type: Authoritrian Effect on Terrorism:Authoritarianism may foster terrorism, but the state can repress domestic terrorist; the state is unhindered by civil liberties. Result: Limited terrorism but may be redirected outside of the country toward more vunerable targets. Risk of Terrorism: Lower Regime Type: Democratic Effect on Terrorism:Participatory insitutions and civil liberties are likely to undercut public support for terrorism. Result: Domestic terrorism less likely, but country may be a target of international terrorism generated in nondemocratic regimes Risk of Terrorism: Moderate Regime Type: Illiberal/ Transitional Effect on Terrorism: Weak state capacity, instability, and limited democratic insitutions may generate both oppurtuntities and motivations for terrorim. Result: Terrorism more likely due to domestic and/or international support. Risk of Terrorism:Higher

Forms of Political Violence: Revolution

Revolution: defined as a public seizure of the state in order to overturn the existing government and regime. Revolutions involve some elememnt of public participation. Revolutions typically have leaders, organizers, and instigators who play a key role. Another factor in our definitons of revolutions is that the people involved are working to gain control of the state This objective distinguishes these actions from such violence as ethnic conflict, through which groups may gain local control or even seek independence but do not or cannot take over the entire state Revolutions do not just want to remove those from power but also want to remove the entire regime Revolutions seek to fundamentally remake the insituitons of politics and often economic and socisl insitutions as well What causes revolution: before WWII scholars described reather than explained revolutions. When cause were assigned, explanations were often unsystematic, blaming bad government policies or leaders Second phase: conicides with behavioral revolution of the 50s-60s where social scientist sought more generalized explanaitons. The vies tended to focus on the role of indiciduals as potential revolutionaries and sought to understand what motivated them Relative depervation model: revolutions are less a function of specfic conditions than of the gap between actual condiditons and public expectations. Improving economic or political conditions might even help lead to revolution, if, for example, such change causes increased public demands that go unmet and thus foster discontent. Ex. 1979 Iranian revolution and 2011 Egyptian revolution . Iran experienced rapid modernization in the decades before the revolution, its progress only increased the people's expectation for greater freedom and equality; especially among young adults. This is what is meant by relative deprivation: it is not absolute conditions that instigate revolution but rather how the public percieves them. Social revolutions require a specfic set of conditins. 1. competion between rival states as they vie for milatary and economic power in the international system through such things as trade and war. Such competiton is costly and often betrays the weakness of states that cannot match their rivals. 2. as a result of compeition, weaker states often seek reform to increase their autonomy and capacity, hoping that changes to domestic insitutions will boost their internationl power. These reforms can include greater state centralization and changes in agriculture, indusry, education, and taxation. Such changes can threaten the status wuo, underming the power of entrentched elites, sowing discord among the public, and creating resistance. The result is discontent, political paralysis, and an opening for revolution. The insituttonal approach to revolution became the dominat view during the 1980s, paralleling a wider intrest in institutions and the power of the state. A key factor in determing the movements' outcome has been the degree to which military and parlimentary forces have remained loyal to the state or shifted their allegiance to those seeking to bring down the regime Its impact is as important as the cause of the regime. The first major impact is that revolutionary regimes often insitutionalize new forms of politics , transforming the existing reguime Despite the call for greater freedom and equality that is the hallmark of the revolution, the result is often the reverse. Revolutions are often the foundation of a modern nation state. However, revolutionary leaders may seek a high degree of state power, rejecting democracy as incompatiable wuth the sweeping goals of the revolution. Egypt, cuba, china, russia, france, and iran are all cases in which public demands for more rights ended with another dictatorship. Revolutionary change can result in high human cost. Mexican revolution led to 1.5 million deaths and russian revolution claimed over 5 million.

Regime Change and Freedom term

Societal actors led the transition over fifty percent resulted in a free country with full civil and political rights. In contrast, less than 15 percent of transitions controlled by those in power or imposed by ither states led to a free political regime. when societal actors refrained from political violence nearly 70 percent of transitions resulted in a free country with full civil and political rights. In contrast, only 20 percent of transitions with societal violence resulted in a free political regime.

Terrorism and Revolution: Means and Ends

Terror was not only a positive act but also a tool in the service of a revolutionary state during the french revolution. Over time, this concept of the relation between terrrorism and revolution began to shift. These revolutionaries thus openly embraced the name terrorist as an expression of their desire to use violence to achieve their political goals. Guriella warfare seeks to abide by traditional rules of war avoiding the targeting of civilians. This decision is driven by political goals. Guriella typically accept that their opponets are legitimate actors, and they themselves wish to be regarded as legitimate by their opponets and the international community. Examples, during the civil conflict in Algeria in the 1990s, two nonstate groups were operating: the Islamic Salvation Frony (FIS) and the Armed Islamic Group (GIA). Both opposed the Algerian regime, which suppressed Islamic fundamentalist groups, but they fought it in very differnt ways. The FIS created an armed wing that targeted specfic parts of the state seen as directly supporting the regime. The FIS, which began as a nonviolent political movement, declared that they could come compromise with the regime if certain demands were set, such as holding democratic elections.

Forms of Political Violence: Terrorism

Terrorism can be defined as the use of violence by nonstate actors againest civilians to achieve a political goal State-sponsored terrorism: States do sometimes sponsor non-state terrorist groups as a means to extend their power by proxy, using terrorism as an instrument for forigen policy. Example: India has long faced terrorist groups fighting for control over the kashmir, a state with a majority muslim population unlike the rest of india. These terrorist are widely thought to be trained and armed by pakistan. Our definition of terrorism also emphazies that the targets of violence are civilians. Gurerrila war involves nonstate combants who largerly accept traditonal rules of war amd target the state rather than civilians. In contrast to terroism, guriella war involves nonstate combants who largerly accept traditional rules of war and target the state rather thna civilians. In the case of South Africa, during military struggle againest the regime the African national congress considered, and then explicity rejected, targeting civilians. In contrast, the Zimbabwean African National Union engaged in both guerila warefare and terrorism to achieve power . Terrorism has some political objective Criminal gangs may engage in terrorism if they are engage in terrorism if they are under pressure from the state. Poverty and lack of education are commonly cited and terrorism is viewed as a tool of desperation when avenues for personal advancement are absent or blocked. Where state capacity and autonomy weak and mechanisms for public participation poorly insitutionalized, terrorism may find both the rationale and oppurtunity to use force. Terrorism is commonly blamed on some ideology, religion, or set of values. Nihilism: we mean a belief that all insitutions and values are essentially meaningless and that the only redeeming value a person can embrace is violence. Political violence can give a life meaning, as sense of greater purpose. Terrprost often seel dramatic change in the existing domestic or international order, and their actions usually do not achieve the goal they have in mind. Economoically, Terrorism can be highly sucessfully depress terrorism, foriegn direct investment, stock market, and other sectors of the economy. Countering terrorism can be a costly and frustrating process with little show for itself, diverting national resources while failing to address public concerns. Terrorism use violence against civillians to rip apart the insitutional fabric of state, society, and economy, calling into question all those things we take for granted including stability, security, and predicitability.

What is political violence?

The state is the cornerstone of modern politics, one that we defined in its most basic terms as the monoply of violence or force over a territory. Individuals lose the freedom to use violence againest one another, turning that rigth over to to the state. This right is exchanged for a greater sense of security. The state's monoply of violence is never perfect or complete. Other states always represent a potential threat, given their own capacity for violence. At the domestic level, violence persists in such forms as murder and armed robbery. However in many countries, these problems are manaagable and do not threaten the stability and security of the state, soverigenty, or economy. Political violence or politically motivated violence outside of state control, is the focus of this chapter.

Political Violence in Context: Faith,Terrorism, and Revolution

This religious resurgence is accompanied by a paticular element of fundamentalism: the desire to unite faith and the state, transforming religion into the ideological foundation for a political regime. While such fundamentalism may be uncompromising, it is not necessarily violent. Many fundamentalist believe that reestablishing God's soverigenty can be done through nonviolent engagement in politics or by withdrawing from politics and instead working to increase the societal power of religion. What are the conditions under which religion becomes a siurce of political violence? -One common factor is hostility to modernity -Cosmic war: the modern worlf noy only actively marginalizes, humilates, and denigrates the views of the believers but also seeks to exterminate the believers outright. -Religion as a source of political violence is often connecrted to messianic, apocalyptic, and utopian beliefs Religious groups or movements that resort to violence represent an extreme form of fundamentalism, since their path to violence requires them to reinterpret the faith in a way that divorces it from its mainstream foundations. Groups radically reintrepreted am existing faith by arguing that it had lost its way. Ex. Osama bin Laden Through this reinterpretation, they viewed the world in terms of an extensial battle betweej good and evils, purity and corruption. As defenders of the truth, they placed themselves in the role of warriors in the service of faith, able to mete out justice to all those who are seen as the enemy, whether state or society.

In Sum: Meeting the challenge of Political Violence

Violence can come at a tremendous cost of human life, when violence becomes an end in itself. Political violence is a response to exisiting insitutions Political violence can emerge in unexpected places There is no clear way to stop or prevent political violence