The methods of instituting social change is evidently the most discussed matter on international fronts. The technique through which progress can be achieved will continue being the most debated matter as long as imperfection of the society exists. On one hand, there are proponents of non-violence. There are individuals who champion for total non-violence while a few individuals push for minimal involvement. Many scholars have dedicated their works on supporting this analogy with many seeing it as the most effective way of winning any political battle. On the other hand, there exists proponents of political violence who believe violence should be instituted as a way of winning a political battle. Many scholars and revolutionists openly embrace the use of political violence. This form of violence includes armed struggle. Sociologists and psychologists have over the years attempted to explore the human mind and why it may choose on violence as a political strategy. The forms of political violence often range from guerilla warfare to contemporary military offensive.
Political violence is described by a few scholars as a means of creating a just society. The use of violence has been divided into two major schools of thought. The first one proposes the notion that violence can be viewed as a form of natural reaction in an attempt of self-defense. The events that may be life threatening to an individual almost always sparks a form of violence in an attempt of natural defense. For instance, when a regime decides to oppress a specific set of people or a community, that group of people will definitely use violence as a counter to the oppressive rule. In this event, the decision on whether to use violence is not one well thought of or deliberated. It is an impulse activity meaning it is spontaneous. This form of political violence has been described as a last resort and is employed in instances of dire urgency. This therefore means that in such situations, the resort to engage in violence is not deliberated upon due to the lack of the luxury of time to engage it. There is no adequate time to debate whether this strategy is morally justifiable since it is seen as the last resort in self-defense. A community that is in the desperate struggle to fight for their existence will therefore use any means available.
The other school of thought focusses on the type of political violence that is planned and well executed. This type of violence is well strategized since its proponents believe in it as the most effective way to bring about social change. In this group of individuals, the result is more predetermined than spontaneous. This group of individuals do not only use violence as a form of self-defense but also as an offensive. The use of political violence has been present since the existence of humanity. The difference is on the means and techniques with which it is employed. Whereas there may seem no moral basis on which political violence would be justified, its role in history has always been acknowledged. Some great thinkers however argue that with abundance of intelligence and progress with which humankind has been endowed today, they would be expected to have found an alternative to the use of political violence. Some however, are of the notion that if there was an alternative to the use of political violence, it would have been employed many decades ago. Political violence is seen as a way of achieving individual or community goals. Many theorists often associate political violence with deprivation, frustration and general dissatisfaction.
The above reasons as to why one may engage in political violence are somewhat obvious and too simplistic. It might seem very common knowledge that the proponents of violence will always have a feeling that they have offended or wronged other people in some way by their radical strategy. In normal situations, this is totally true. However, this begs the question, why do some people choose to pursue violence while others are strong proponents of total non-violence? The answer to these complex set of questions is not easy to come by. But the reason as to why one may resolve to use or abstain from violence depends on both the circumstance and time setting. Political violence can be justified in the event that an individual uses it in an attempt to save their life. However, this form of violence has been abused and manipulated by many political figures even in contemporary times. The ugly side of violence is expressed when a political figure uses it as a strategy to achieve personal gain. The decision to use violence is therefore prone to manipulation by individuals who see it as a viable means of winning a revolution.
Terrorism is seen as a new way of exerting political violence and is seen as a totalitarian strategy. Unlike other forms of political violence, terrorism results in the attack of innocent citizens with the aim of sending a message to the regimes to alter their way of doing things. On the other hand, conventional political violence is often seen as retaliation directly to regimes as a last resort in an effort of self-defense. Terrorism differs in many aspects from other forms of political violence with all acts of terrorism being well planned and executed targeting a large number of individuals.
Works Cited
Coady, C. A. J. Morality and political violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Gupta, Dipak K. Understanding terrorism and political violence: The life cycle of birth, growth, transformation, and demise. London, UK.: Routledge, 2008.
Held, Virginia. How terrorism is wrong: Morality and political violence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
