When it comes to the term coercion, there are usually negative connotations mentioned and covered. Indeed, to coerce someone is to be perhaps punitive and harsh when it comes to leveraging someone to comply with a preference or directive. However, there are some areas of concern and discussion where the usual shades of black and white when it comes to coercion instead fade to shades of gray. For example, if a person charged with a crime is clearly guilty but is not pleading to that effect, they can be offered a plea deal or told that the death penalty or life in prison will be taken off the table in exchange for compliance. In many cases, the alleged perpetrator is guilty and will often acquiesce so as to avoid a harsher sentence. In that instance, the person was technically coerced but it was for the right reasons. After all, avoiding a trial that can become very emotional, messy and prolonged can cause a great deal of grief and expense to everyone involved. A clear example of coercion used for the wrong reasons is robbers threatening to shoot a victim or their family or friends if they don’t give up the money or whatever else the robber wants. In short, coercion can be good or bad depending on the situation and the perspective being used.
Politics is no different in this regard. There are times and situations where coercion can manifest in the form of unfair blackmail or extortion. Other times, the information or threats that are in play are based on revealing true and real information rather than being falsehoods or lies that are meant to hurt the person despite not being true. Other times, coercion can be used for good, or at least the good of the political operative and/or party that is jockeying for legislation to pass or for other progress to be made. For example, the Democrats in the United States have taken on some rather nasty losses over recent years in terms of Senate seats, governorships, state legislator positions and so on. Beyond that, there are a number of Senate seats up for grabs in 2018 that are in states that voted for the president-elect. Perhaps it might be a miscalculation to assume that Trump and the GOP will not alienate or overreach. However, it is not beyond the pale to assume that the GOP will use the upcoming reelection cycle for those currently-red states as a means to get votes for bills and programs that will be on the Congressional docket over the next two years.
Now that the form and function of politics and how coercion can or might manifest within the same, there should be a review and summary of the scholarly and historical literature on the subject so as to expand and flesh out the perspectives and ideas that are being discussed. The work of Joseph Raz and one of his recent treatises that relates to political coercion is very illuminating and defining. One realm and idea that he explores is the idea that there are bounds and limitations of authority. An example would be the power, or lack thereof, of the states when it comes to pushing through or blocking something that the majority is less than thrilled about being present. Another concern when it comes to politics and coercion is the rights and morality of the differing people that are in the electoral construct, whether that be the voters, the elected officials or appointees of the officials. Any concept of perfection and efficiency within politics is easily done away with when considering the idea that ideology could ever be excluded as a factor when it comes to politics and/or the idea that elected officials are neutral and not completely (or mostly) acting based on the whims and directives of their party or voters. Indeed, what the voters or colleagues of Nancy Pelosi would say would be entirely different than what the voters and colleagues of Paul Ryan would say. For this and other reasons, there are some people that might presume that Senators and House members have autonomy and freedom to vote as they please or at least with the electorate that voted them in. However, it is much more complicated than that and there are myriad examples of this that are easy to find .
As explained by Frankfurt, a person that is on the receiving end of any coercion is apt to want to avoid the penalty and negative consequences that might surely underpin said threat. This pattern of avoidance is so severe that it can cause someone under the threat of coercion to engage in a behavior or vote a certain way even if they would never normally do so absent some sort of threat such as would be the case with coercion. Beyond that, whether the person under coercion bears any sort of blame for acting under duress entirely depends on the underlying facts and factors that are in question. Indeed, if the person is being extorted and threatened based on information that is compromising yet true, that would be an aggravating factor for the person. On the other hand, if the person is under coercion through no fault of their own and is truly being threatened on a personal or physical level, that is another thing entirely. True physical danger and threats, of course, are not common in the more modern and advanced countries and their political systems. However, character assassination and career destruction are almost always on the table .
When it comes to the work of Pallikkathayil, there is the assertion that was very much echoed earlier in this report and that was the supposition that coercion is generally considered to be negative when it is first broached as a subject. Further, there is also the echo about when there is physical coercion versus when the coercion is more exacting, mental and cerebral. Indeed, the idea of “the money or your life” is certainly coercion but so is “I’ll ruin your career” . The latter is very much what Nozick spoke of when he spoke about coercion. Indeed, the Plato philosophy library gives several great examples in terms of analysis and synthesizing what coercion really is, especially in a political context. Perhaps one of the best examples to pluck out of his treatise on the subject is the idea that “theorists have frequently treated the making of a conditional threat as an essential factor in coercion”, as is noted in section 2.2 of the Plato library section on this subject. Another layer to the proverbial onion, though, is that offers can be seen as coercion in their own way. This is expanded upon in section 2.4 and there is the defining of baselines and what makes an offer coercive, which can indeed happen . The work of Bernard Williams on the subject of coercion, although a work in progress when he passed, is also fascinating on many levels. Williams had a very comprehensive and full-figured perspective on the subject. He admitted and made clear that the subjects and presence of justice, liberty, toleration and fear of power are all part of the political equation and coercion obviously touches on (or goes against) all of those things .
When it comes to the viewpoints and scholarship on the subject of coercion independent of the stalwarts and experts on the subject already mentioned and covered, there are other events and happenstances that can be seen as coercion in a political frame. For example, while some people use words and verbal threats to coerce people in political power (or the voters that install the same), there are those that use bombs and bullets to make their point. Whether it be shooting up an arena full of people or setting off a bomb in a train station, those events are seen as a way to terrorize people while also driving home a point about the disdain the attackers have for the country they are attacking, what they are doing and so forth. One common subject that comes up when talking about terrorism and attacks on random civilians is interference in the Middle East or other meccas for terrorism. Other times, it is simply about revenge for attacks on their soldiers and militants or otherwise punishing people for the actions of politicians, presumably as a means to intimidate the voters into stopping the attacks on terrorism targets . There is also the use of what is known as economic coercion. Just like with terrorism, economic coercion is about influencing both the elected officials as well as the civilians and regular people that are subject to the economic coercion, whether that be sanctions, embargos or other things like that. The long-standing Cuba embargo was commonly seen as coercion or necessary depending on who was making the declaration and what their perspective was . In other instances, politically-created coercion can be put forth from the government of a country or state upon the voters or residents of that same state. While a reader of this report might think that the people about to be mentioned are prisoners or something of that sort. However, one could also mention governments forcing, by physical force or threat of jail or other punishment, if they do not sterilized and thus prevented from having any further kids. Minus the forced sterilization, the “one child” policy that China had at one point would be an example of this in many ways .
One final vein of politically-oriented coercion that should be mentioned is when the voters put force and coercion, however slight or small, back on the politicians. Indeed, many people engage in defiance of what they see as “unjust” laws and regulations. The ways in which this manifests include protests, riots or an unapologetic violation of the law in the open air. A more docile yet accurate example of this in motion is when people smoke marijuana in spite of laws, both federal and state/provincial, that ban the behavior. Indeed, there is a rather clear demarcation between not liking a law and abrasively breaking the law as a means of protest and uprising .
In the end, it remains clear that politically oriented coercion is here to stay and it is easy to find in many sectors and parts of government and the rest of society. Whether this will continue to ramp up over time remains to be seen. However, it is not likely to end in any demonstrable or major way since it often works so well and/or the people that use it just decide to be relentless or pick their spots as they can. Regardless of how free or oppressive a society or government happens to be, coercion can and will manifest in many forms and many instances.
Bibliography
2017. "AS STATES LEGALIZE MARIJUANA, LAWS REMAIN MURKY." Journal Of
Property Management 82, no. 1: 28-29. Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed
Dannenbaum, Tom. 2011. "Bombs, Ballots, and Coercion: The Madrid Bombings, Electoral
Politics, and Terrorist Strategy." Security Studies 20, no. 3: 303-349. Academic Search
Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed January 16, 2017).
Frankfurt, Harry G. The Importance Of What We Care About. 1st ed. Cambridge [England]:
Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Kingdom, Elizabeth. 1985. "Consent, coercion and consortium: the sexual politics of
sterilisation." Journal Of Law And Society 12, no. 1: 19-34. MEDLINE,
EBSCOhost (accessed January 16, 2017).
Nozick, Robert. "Coercion". Plato.Stanford.Edu. Last modified 2011. Accessed January 17,
2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/coercion/.
Olson, Richard Stuart. 1979. "ECONOMIC COERCION IN WORLD POLITICS: With a Focus
on North-South Relations." World Politics 31, no. 4: 471-494. Business Source Premier,
EBSCOhost (accessed January 16, 2017).
Pallikkathayil, Japa. "The Possibility Of Choice: Three Accounts Of The Problem With
Coercion". quod.Lib.Umich.Edu. Last modified 2011. Accessed January 17, 2017.
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/dod-idx/possibility-of-choice-three-accounts-of-the-
problem-with.pdf?c=phimp;idno=3521354.0011.016.
Raz, Joseph. The Morality Of Freedom. 1st ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.
Schmidt, Laura A., Laurie M. Jacobs, and Joanne Spetz. 2016. "Young People's More Permissive
Views About Marijuana: Local Impact of State Laws or National Trend?." American
EBSCOhost (accessed January 16, 2017).
Williams, Bernard and Geoffrey Hawthorn. In The Beginning Was The Deed. 1st ed. Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2008.
