Introduction
Our great human civilization is built on the foundation of rule of law whereby violence is abhorred and peace exalted. This is because violence normally results in losses of both life and economic resources. Despite these realities, there have been numerous cases of political violence throughout history. In some instances, political violence has had popular support and led to positive change therefore begging the question as to whether acts of violence against one’s own government are justified.
Considering the enormous impact that political violence has on a nation and its people, it would be a worthwhile endeavor to review the justifiability of political violence. To this end, this paper shall set out to argue that political violence directed against one’s own government is at times justifiable and indeed preferable to the alternative peaceful acceptance of the status quo.
A Case for Political Violence
Political violence mostly involves internal armed conflict between various forces or parties with conflicting political ideologies in a nation. While the term violence has a negative connotation, historians and philosophers have argued that political violence may be justified depending on the circumstances in question. A particularly interesting case of political violence is the American Civil War. As a result of political violence, the American revolutionalists overthrew the British colonial ruler therefore leading to the formation of a strong United States of America. The chief author of the American constitution, Thomas Jefferson exalted periodic rebellion as “medicine necessary for the sound health of government” (911).
One of the chief responsibilities of any government is to ensure the provision of security for all its citizens. This is one of the mandates that the state through the use of its police force and military forces achieves. Kirwin and Wonbin theorize that the state should have a monopoly on the use of force and should use the same to “enforce laws for the mitigation of conflict” (6).
In some cases, the state may fail to provide this security to its citizens or even worse still, be responsible for the high level of violence experienced within its borders. In such instances, political violence may be permissible as the citizens seek alternative strategies to ensure their security which the government fails to provide. This is a position that is supported by Cohan who claims that political violence are generally legitimate and justifiable means through which hostile governments can be made to meet their demise (910).
The relationship between poverty, inequality, unemployment and armed conflict is very evident since citizens of poor nations feel resentful towards their government. Solimano reinforces this hypothesis by asserting that the risk of conflict and political violence diminishes as a country increases its level of economic development (19).
A case in point is the Latin Americas region where political violence has mostly been instigated by social movements and left-wing political parties which are motivated by strong active social agendas (Solimano 23). As a result of political violence, governments in Latin American have been forced to deal with issues such as underdevelopment, poverty and inequality. This being the case, political violence can be used as the tool through which positive change is brought about to the country.
While violence is inherently wrong, there arises a situation whereby it is morally justifiable. Ruby demonstrates that in the example of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, the political violence was seen as morally justifiable (12). This is because the insurgent forces were aiming to eliminate British dominance in Northern Ireland, a task that they viewed to be morally justifiable. Therefore, inasmuch as the violence resulted in the wanton destruction of property and the loss of lives of innocent civilians, the propagators of the political violence were still able to maintain a moral sanctity since their cause was morally just.
Sabecedo, Blanco and Corte assert that in the most extreme form, political violence involves physically eliminating one’s adversaries (550). While such a violent act in itself would simply be wrong, the consequences of the same might render the act morally right (O’Boyle 27). The typical example given is a situation whereby the killing of one person would result in the saving of many other lives. For example, if there had been political violence in Nazi Germany which resulted in the assassination of the Nazi leader Hitler, then it can be assumed that millions of lives would have been saved. Political violence would therefore have been morally justifiable since it would have resulted in the saving of millions of innocent citizens.
A Case against Political Violence
Political violence results in instability and jeopardizes democratic reforms as well as any prospects of economic development especially in developing nations. Kirwin and Wonbin authoritatively state that “political violence is typically the penultimate event that precedes full-scale civil war” (2). The authors go on to demonstrate that these civil wars which result from political violence may run for decades resulting in the death and suffering of hundreds of thousands. With such realities in mind, it can be argued that political violence justified or not, should be avoided by all means.
Discussion
Without doubt, it would be preferable if violence was never used to settle any scores since violence results in the destruction of lives and physical assets therefore negating development. In the ideal situation, negotiations and consensus will result in peaceful resolution of conflicts and avoidance of political violence.
However, this ideal may not always be realizable and at times, it may be inevitable to resort to violence so as to safeguard the freedom, prosperity and eventually the peace of the citizens of a nation. Cohan notes that even the United Nations Charter concedes that the international community should ideally not be involved in matters of internal strive which pertain to domestic sovereignty (911). As such, it can be deduced that there are instances whereby political violence may be permissible even by international standards.
Conclusion
Political violence while undesirable may at times be the only means through desirable results are achieved. This paper has given a succinct but informative discussion to reinforce this assertion by highlighting instances whereby it is justifiable for one to adopt violence means against their government.
From the discussions presented herein, it is clear that there are circumstances whereby it is not only justifiable but also obligatory for citizens of a nation to resort to political violence for the good of the nations. In such instances, political violence may lead to institutional reforms, improved democracies or even the overthrow of oppressive regimes. However, the paper has also shown that violence invariably results in destruction and suffering for people. Therefore, despite being justifiable, political violence should only be employed in extremely rare situations and only as a last resort.
Works Cited
Cohan, Alan. Necessity, Political Violence and Terrorism. Stetson Law Review Vol. 35, 2006.
Kirwin, Matthew and Wonbin, Cho. Weak States and Political Violence in Sub-Saharan Africa. Afrobarometer publications, 2009.
Sabucedo, J Blanco, Amalio and Corte, Luis. Beliefs which Legitimize Political Violence against the Innocent. Psicothema 2003. Vol. 15, no 4, pp. 550-555
Solimano, A. Political Violence and Economic Development in Latin America: Issues and Evidence. United Nations Publication, 2004. Print.
O’Boyle, Garrett. Theories of Justification and Political Violence: Examples from Four Groups. Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 14, No 2, 2002, pp. 23-46.
Ruby, Charles. The Definition of Terrorism. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2002, pp. 9–14.